[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
In a message dated 96-09-09 09:59:08 EDT,
T.Williams@cclru.randwick.unsw.edu.au (Tim Williams) writes:
> Ahh yes, I forgot about that one. Its crests are somehwat bulkier
> than those of its cousin from Arizona. But the point still stands.
> Among theropods, paired cranial crests are known only for
> coelophysoid species (two Dilophosaurus species, one Syntarsus
> species), so I'd be surprised if it wasn't a synapomorphy for a
> clade within the Ceratosauria.
I would be inclined to agree with you on this. It would be nice to see a few
more synapomorphies uniting _Syntarsus kayentakatae_ with _Dilophosaurus_,
just to really nail it down.
Tim Rowe was actually going to create a new genus for _S. kayentakatae_ but
decided against it before publishing. Apparently the species was, other than
the low crests, too close to _S. rhodesiensis_ for comfort. But if the
cranial crests are indeed transitional between the uncrested ceratosaurs and
_Dilophosaurus_, there is no choice (for a cladist, to whom retaining
_Syntarsus_ as a paragenus would be anathema) but to erect a new genus.