[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Theropod cladogram

In a message dated 96-02-11 10:48:51 EST, muriel29@wavenet.com (MC2) writes:

>       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.)

For many decades, Megalosauridae served as a taxonomic wastebasket for
miscellaneous large-theropod remains that were not obviously tyrannosaurid
skeletal material. Now that people have started removing the crud (tooth
taxa, etc.) from the family and are taking a closer look at the genus
_Megalosaurus_ and its type species _Megalosaurus bucklandii_, it is turning
out that the family may be well defined after all. Its phyletic position is
still insecure, but it may be a ceratosaurian offshoot (according to Brooks
Britt), or a taxon intermediate between Ceratosauria and Carnosauria
(according to some other people), or even a primitive carnosaurian genus
(similar to _Eustreptospondylus_). Some of the British material referred to
_Megalosaurus_ looks very ceratosaurian to me (similar to _Dilophosaurus_,
for example).