[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
>On 10/8/95 Tom Holtz wrote:
>>Despite comments in the text, there is nothing surprising about ceratosaurs
>>Cretaceous: there are ceratosaurs in the latest Cretaceous of Europe, India,
>With all respect, the only ceratosauria from the Cretaceous period that i
>know is Genusaurus. Your comment is very supprising for me. Could you please
>be more specific in this matter and give me further information.
It has long been recognized (long defined as 1988) that the Abelisauridae
and their kin are members of the Ceratosauria. See papers by Fernando Novas,
Paul Sereno et al., myself, Tim Rowe (in the Age of Dinosaurs), Perez_Moreno,
and many others. Since the abelisaurids just slipped into _The Dinosauria_
(as a very late addition), this relationship is not covered there. However,
all these workers agree that a) Abelisaurus, Carnotaurus, Xenotarsosaurus,
and maybe Tarascosaurus, Majungasaurus, Indosaurus, Indosuchus, etc. are
ceratosaurs and b) many agree that they are closer to Ceratosaurus than to
the coelophysoids. Where known, these all show the basal synapormorphies of
Ceratosauria. Several Argentine paleontologists are working out the ingroup
relationships of the Abelisauroid ceratosaurs.
The Genusaurus paper failed to reference any paper post-1990, which makes
me suspect that it was held up in publication for quite some time.
Hope that clears things up.
Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Dept. of Geology
University of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742