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

Re: CHINESE SAUROPODS



On Mon, 26 Jan 1998, Tetanurae wrote:

> In truth, it simply matters on which family was named first.
I knew this, but guessed (wrongly) that Mamenchisauridae was named at the
same time as _Mamenchisaurus_.

> Additionally, as I have said before, Shunosaurus is a much more basal sauropod
> than those belonging to the Euhelopodidae.  The single character used to unite
> them (ossified tail clubs) is probably in error and should be thrown out of
> subsequent analyses [more info is in a prior post of mine in the archives].

Didn't _Omeisaurus_ have a club?

--T. Mike Keesey
tkeese1@gl.umbc.edu
http://umbc.edu/~tkeese1 -- Dinosaur Web Pages