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

RE: Dinosaur Genera List corrections #148

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu [mailto:owner-dinosaur@usc.edu]On Behalf Of T.
Mike Keesey
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 11:31 AM
To: Dinogeorge@aol.com
Cc: dinosaur@usc.edu
Subject: Re: Dinosaur Genera List corrections #148

On Wed, 6 Sep 2000 Dinogeorge@aol.com wrote:

> Stegopeltinae: new >ankylosaurid< subfamily introduced in Tracy's paper. I
> had a feeling that would arouse a bit of interest... Comprises Stegopelta,
> Glyptodontopelta, and a new genus in press (the San Diego "nodosaurid,"
> is actually an ankylosaurid after all). Tracy also uses Syrmosaurinae as
> oldest available name for the ankylosaurid subfamily that comprises
> Amtosaurus, Nodocephalosaurus, Pinacosaurus (senior synonym of
> Saichania, Shanxia, Talarurus, Tarchia, and Tianzhenosaurus.

Which sense of Ankylosauridae is this, _sensu lato_ (including
Polacanthinae), or _sensu stricto_?

I use the former definition on my site, and it seems as though these
"-inae"'s would be changed to "-ini"'s under that system:

              |  |--_Ankylosaurus_
              |  `--_Euoplocephalus_
              |  |--unnamed San Diego form
              |  |--_Glyptodontopelta_
              |  `--_Stegopelta_

Is this correct? And where do _Maleevus_ and _Sauroplites_ go<<
I move Polacanthidae as its own family and different from Ankylosauridae.