[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
>group(late Triassic-mid Jurassic ?) as compared to Tetanurae
? In ther
>words , we have no representative genera related to this group
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.
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
>Coelophysids in respects to the premax/max. portion of the skull
>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
>Regards , Truett Garner