[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
>On Thu, 25 Jan 1996, Rob Meyerson wrote:
>> As an additional question, what is the status of _Ankylosaurus_ within=
>> group? Is it still a questionable genus?
>I wasn't aware that it ever was! Anyway, as the first named,=20
>_Ankylosaurus_ has priority over all other names. It looks to me like=20
>we've got pretty good material of _Ankylosaurus magniventris_, certainly=20
>enough to show that it was closely related to _Euoplocephalus_ and=20
>_Talarurus_ (sorry, George), and that it was the largest and latest of=20
>the ankylosaurs (as I recall).
I remember reading in one of my childhood books on dinosaurs (one of the=
more informative ones, at that), that some scientists put Ankylo and Euplo=
in the same genus. For some reason, the author suggested that Euplo was=
the dominant name. I am beginning to suspect drug use by the author.
>"If you can't convince them, confuse them." -- Harry S. Truman
The path I usually take.