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

Re: Questions , Questions ,Questions

>Does this indicate that Coelophysoidea is a relatively short-lived
>group(late Triassic-mid Jurassic ?) as compared to Tetanurae ? In ther
>words , we have no representative genera related to this group beyond D.
>wetherilli ?
Yes, but I don't think Coelophysoidea were ever considered as long-lived. However, we might have to be careful with them. I am of those who think that many dinosaur group had more ancient origin than what is proved by currenty known fossils, so we may discover older coelophysoids. It is also well possible that they left some rare descendants (e.g., Elaphrosaurus).

>So Abelisauridae could represent a group related to Carcharodontidae ,
>somewhat endemic to the Southern Hemisphere , but not closely related to C.
>nasicornis ?
However, be very careful with any supposition about abelisaur phylogenetic placement. They have some tyrannosaurid characters, as well as ceratosaur and carcharodontosaur characters. Their position is still far from being resolved.

>So there's only a superficial resemblence between Spinosaurids and
>Coelophysids in respects to the premax/max. portion of the skull in
>profile? ( It's hard to tell from the photos I have. )
Yes, I think so. However, one more time, I suggest you not to forget the abelisaur-spinosaur relationship. I may, as a little footnote, point out that abelisaurs, spinosaurs AND carcharodontosaurs are all gondwanian theropods for which relationships have been proposed in various ways, and which are all difficult to place in a phylogeny.

>Thank you you both for taking your time to respond to these questions !
>Regards , Truett Garner
Best regards.
Félix Landry
e-mail: forelf@internet19.fr