[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: PROG. PALAEO. '98
On Thu, 28 May 1998 Dinogeorge@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 98-05-28 10:42:42 EDT, firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
> << Caudal verts are platicoelous-amphicoelous, so I suppose this is not
> a titanosaur. >>
> Since everyone seems to believe that _Opisthocoelicaudia_ is a titanosaur,
> there's no reason to exclude platycoelous/amphicoelous caudals from
> Titanosaur[ia; formes; oidea; idae; take your pick]. These could simply be
> transitional between the familiar procoelous caudals of most titanosaurs and
> the opisthocoelous caudals of _O._
> Dripping with sarcasm...
Touche! Nevertheless I think Phuwiangosaurus (spelling?) may be just such
a basal opisthocoelocaudiine titanosaur as you predict!