[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Theropod cladogram
On Sun, 11 Feb 1996, MC2 wrote:
> 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
It was, until the evidence was reexamined and most of the species
included were reassigned to other families. It now really only includes
_Megalosaurus_, _Poikilopleuron_ (probably referable to _Megalosaurus_),
_Torvosaurus_, and _Edmarka_. These are all fairly large, middle to late
Jurassic tetanuran theropods with broad lower hip bones and extremely short
> that included the Albertosaurs before they went to their (currently)
> rightful place in the Tyrannosauridae.
I was not aware that _Albertosaurus_ was ever classified as a megalosaur,
but as a lot of large theropods were, I wouldn't be surprised.
> ("The Dinosauria" calls the
> Megalosauridae a "taxonomic wadtebasket," p. 153.)
As mentioned above, it was; but it isn't anymore.
> And don't forget Nanotyrannus lancensis. It had been originally
> catalogued in the Cleveland Museum as a megalosaur
It was catalogued as an albertosaur (actually as a gorgosaur, since
nobody was using the genus _Albertosaurus_ at the time).
> I'm pretty sure this is Greg Paul's position on the megalosaurs,
> and I haven't heard anything different lately. (George Ohlshevsky, what
> about you?)
In _Predatory Dinosaurs of the World_, Paul retains the family
Megalosauridae, synonymizes _Megalosaurus_, _Poikilopleuron_, and
_Torvosaurus_, and throws the abelisaurs into the Megalosauridae as well.
> T.A. Curtis, Proto-paleontologist
Pacific Lutheran University
Tacoma, WA 98447
"If you can't convince them, confuse them." -- Harry S Truman