[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
This is in response to the theropod cladogram dated 9 Feb 1996.
I thought "Megalosauridae" was taxonomically problematic, if not
defunct. I have the impression [and I'm speaking on the spur of the
moment, so be gentle!-:)] that the Megalosauridae was sort of a catch-all
group that included the Albertosaurs before they went to their (currently)
rightful place in the Tyrannosauridae. ("The Dinosauria" calls the
Megalosauridae a "taxonomic wadtebasket," p. 153.)
And don't forget Nanotyrannus lancensis. It had been originally
catalogued in the Cleveland Museum as a megalosaur (and even given a
plaster touch-up by its preparators) until Bakker et al decided to rough it
up enough so that the plaster fell off, revealing a "pygmy tyrannosaur"
lurking beneath. Part of the reason N. lancensis had been originally
classified as a megalosaur was because of its size--more or less
Albertosaurus size, depending on the flavor. And what do you know? Now
they're both tyrannosaurs.
I'm pretty sure this is Greg Paul's position on the megalosaurs,
and I haven't heard anything different lately. (George Ohlshevsky, what
T.A. Curtis, Proto-paleontologist
PS: I hope this thing gets posted. I'm an E-mail novice. As somebody
perceptively (and understandably) once said, "Wow, does this thing really