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


George wrote up his thoughts on thyreophoran phylogeny and wrote of

> It's >not< a (basal) thyreophoran, nor is it an ankylosaur close to > > >
_Scelidosaurus_  and _Scutellosaurus_ as many have it. 

I understand that the latter option has been argued by Adrian Hunt (or was it
Spencer Lucas?). What are the arguments employed in the construction of this
case? I haven't seen the paper.
While on the subject of _Emausaurus_, the creature is named after an institute
whose acronym is either E.M.A. or E.M.A.U.. What is the full name of that

> Finally, Thyreophora is almost certainly diphyletic. Ankylosaurians derive
> from much more primitive ornithischians than do the stegosaurians, which are
> the sister group of the heterodontosaurians (=heterodontosaurids +
> marginocephalians) plus ornithopods. (I can't off the top of my head recall
> Sereno's name for the latter clade.)

Cerapoda isn't it?

"Promise you'll always be there"