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

Re: ornithischian classification (modified; more detailed)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Kinman" <kinman@hotmail.com>
To: <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2001 6:14 PM
Subject: ornithischian classification (modified; more detailed)

> Dear All,
>Okay, here is my modified and expanded classification (with more
> plesions/plesia---anyone know for sure which is correct?).  To avoid
> confusion I will cladistically split the euornithopod clade.  It will also
> avoid a possible priority issue with Iguanodontidae (but I am still
> off the strong urge to lump some of these).
> I am going to remain conservative (for the time being) on the issues
> which George has brought up:
> (1) Pisanosauridae (a possible marginocephalian??); and (2) possible
> paraphyly of Thyreophora sensu lato----i.e. Stegosauridae forming a clade
> between an ankylosaurid clade 3A-C (Thyreophora sensu stricto) and the
> ceropodan clade [presently coded 4+].   Look forward to hearing more from
> George ("in due time").  If George is right, I'm not sure if Emausaurus
> group with the stegosaurs or the ankylosaur clade.

I've the suspect that Emausaurus represent the most basal Stegosauria,
infact there're some similarities in the skull of Emausaurus and

>Also wondering if
> Jeholosaurus and Echinodon are part of this thyreophoran mess or if one or
> both of them split off just basal to it (so I didn't put  those two in

I don't think that Echinodon is a Thyreophora, I suspect that Echinodon is a

Marisa Alessandro
"Volounteer of Museo Paleontologico Cittadino, Monfalcone"
Via Achille Grandi n°18
Tel:039-0464-434658 Email amaris@tin.it
Museum Web-Page: http://www.fante.speleo.it