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

RE: Tarsitano's challenges



> From: Dinogeorge@aol.com [mailto:Dinogeorge@aol.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 10:47 AM
>
> In a message dated 6/28/00 7:26:51 AM EST, tholtz@geol.umd.edu writes:
>
> << I, he, Dodson, Farlow (I think), Ruben,
>  and a few others were at a table, and somehow the subject of
> tyrannosaurids
>  as coelurosaurs came up.  Tarsitano said "who ever said that".  I can't
>  remember if Dodson said, pointing to me "He did" or I said "I
> did" first: it
>  was pretty close to simultaneous >>
>
> Actually, I think Huene first came up with this idea sometime during the
> middle of the previous century. Don't have the reference(s)
> handy, but I seem
> to recall reading this in his 1956 treatise on the phylogeny and
> paleontology
> of the lower tetrapods. Notion was dismissed by virtually
> everyone else, who
> maintained that tyrannosaurids were clearly carnosaurs, etc.

Huene came up with the idea in the 1920s (although he rescinded his idea in
the big Saurischia monograph in 1933-34, thenabouts), so by the Neideren
Tetrapoden volume they were back in Carnosauria.  Matthew & Brown also
published on the idea in the 1920s.  A few others (Lull, Gregory) carried
the idea in 1940s.  Bakker made a (VERY) brief mention of this idea in the
1970s.

However, Osborn's awesome authority seems to have obscured this concept for
most of the mid-century, despite the fact that some of his reasoning
(aristogenesis and a much shorter geologic history than currently accepted)
was rejected within his own lifetime.

To be fair, I did bring this up at the meal: that the guy who coined the
terms "Carnosauria" and "Coelurosauria" recognized (at least for awhile) the
coelurosaurian nature of tyrannosaurids.  (Indeed, his phyletic diagrams
show them and ornithomimids being the most recent split from each other; he
also postulated a Ceratosaurus-Coelophysis branch low in the
coelurosaurs...).  I also brought up the fact that Paul had argued for a
tyrannosaur-ornithomimosaur group in his 1984 cladogram, and that during the
1980s I and Sereno and Novas and Currie and Bakker were all mostly
independanty finding characters to support a position for tyrant dinos
closer to birds and dromaeosaurs and ornithomimosaurs than to _Allosaurus_.

Still, it was kind of funny...

                Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
                Vertebrate Paleontologist
Department of Geology           Director, Earth, Life & Time Program
University of Maryland          College Park Scholars
                College Park, MD  20742
http://www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/tholtz.htm
http://www.geol.umd.edu/~jmerck/eltsite
Phone:  301-405-4084    Email:  tholtz@geol.umd.edu
Fax (Geol):  301-314-9661       Fax (CPS-ELT): 301-314-7843