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

[no subject]



>Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 16:15:37 -0500
>Errors-To: cnedin@geology.adelaide.edu.au
>Reply-To: DRosent288@aol.com
>Originator: dinosaur@lepomis.psych.upenn.edu
>Sender: dinosaur@lepomis.psych.upenn.edu
>Precedence: bulk
>From: DRosent288@aol.com
>To: cnedin@geology.adelaide.edu.au
>X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
>X-Comment: List for the scientific discussion of dinosaurs
>X-UIDL: 825634496.001
>
>This message was submitted by DRosent288@aol.com to list
>dinosaur@lepomis.psych.upenn.edu. If you forward it back to the list, it will
>be distributed without the paragraphs above the dashed line. You may edit the
>Subject: line and the text of the message before forwarding it back.
>
>If you edit the messages you receive into a digest, you will need to remove
>these paragraphs and the dashed line before mailing the result to the list.
>Finally, if you need more information from the author of this message, you
>should be able to do so by simply replying to this note.
>
>----------------------- Message requiring your approval ----------------------
>Sender: DRosent288@aol.com
>Subject:
>
>n a proposed new family of sauropods, the Andesauridae? I am
>familiar with the divison of sauropods into
>Vulcanodontidae, Cetiosauridae, Camarisauridae, Brachiosauridae,
>Diplodocidae and Titanosauridae, and the suggestion made several
>years ago that the following classes should be added: Barapasauridae
>(intermediate between Vulcanodontidae and Cetiosauridae), Dicraeosauridae
>(sometimes trated a a subfamily
>of the Diplodocidae: fairly similar but shorter necks), and Euhelopidae
>(Chinese sauropods with diplodocid like tails and chevron bones but
>Camarasaur like heads, e.g. Euhelopus, Mamenchisaurus, Omeisaurus.)  Now,  I
>understand that a new family of (mainly South American Upper Cretaceous)
>sauropods, all formerly classified as titanosaurids, has been proposed, the
>Andesauridae.  All of these sauropods were formerly classed as Titanosaurids.
> What is the justification for the new family; i.e. what special
>characteristics set the Andesauridae apart from the Titanosauridae? Could
>they be a subfamily of Titanosauridae?
>
>A related (maybe) question: where does Opithocoelicaudia fit in?
>
>

cnedin@geology.adelaide.edu.au                  nedin@ediacara.org
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Many say it was a mistake to come down from the trees, some say
the move out of the oceans was a bad idea. Me, I say the stiffening
of the notochord in the Cambrian was where it all went wrong,
it was all downhill from there.