[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Wilson & Sereno's Sauropod Phylogeny
In a message dated 6/26/98 4:33:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> Conspicuous by their absence are: _Mamenchisaurus_, _Rebbachisaurus_,
> _Rayososaurus_, the In Abaka sauropod (okay, it still has to be described,
> but I was hoping it was going to come out in this paper...), _Cetiosaurus_,
> _Phuwiangosaurus_, _Astrodon_/_Pleurocoelus_, and ingroup relationships of
> Diplodocoidea and Titanosauria. Granted, this would make things even
> and more complicated, but I'd still like to see where these fit in this
I too was disappointed with this and was about to lament it to the list until
you beat me to it ;-)
Of course my only concern had to do with Astrodon (Pleurocoelus). I had heard
that some people (I need to find the ref) regard Astrodon as a basal
Titanosaurid and more recently (including this paper) I heard the move was on
to place it back in the Brachiosauridae.I wonder how much the topology of the
tree would change had they considered these (and this) genera.
I also noted in the refs section that important papers by Marsh and Hatcher
regarding Astrodon (Pleurocoelus) were not even listed which could explain
their omission of same.
I would be interested to hear what those on this list that know anything of
Astrodon to speculate on it's affinities.
Thomas R. Lipka