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

Re: Details on Huaibasaurus

Timothy Williams wrote-

> Wow!  Do you have the complete reference for this paper?  (If it was
> mentioned before, I missed it.)

Sorry.  Pi, Ouyang and Ye, 1996. >unknown title<. in Papers on Geosciences
Contributed to the 30th International Geological Congress, pg. 87-91.

> Do the authors comment on the affinities of _Mamenchisaurus_?   (I know
> paper is in Chinese - but do they have a cladogram or anything?)
> There are two very different view on the relationships of _Mamenchisaurus_
> vs _Euhelopus_.   One view (Upchurch) is that the two (and _Omeisaurus_)
> belong to a monophyletic family near the base of the Eusauropoda.
> The other view (Wilson + Sereno) is that the two are not closely related:
> _Euhelopus_ is a derived titanosauriform, and _Mamenchisaurus_ is probably
> far more basal form (consistent with Upchurch's analysis).

No cladogram.  Only figures of the naturally articulated skeleton, skull
with lower jaw, seventh cervical and twelfth and fourth dorsals.  Entering
the skull data into the matrix of Upchurch's 1998 analysis results in
Mamenchisaurus still being placed in the Euhelopodidae outside of
Eusauropoda.  I never was a fan of Sereno's analyses, he always leaves out
all the characters that could contradict his phylogeny.  I wonder what would
happen if Mamenchisaurus was added to his data matrix.  I'll have to try it

Mickey Mortimer