[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Sauropodan Anchisaurs and Feeuccia Reversals
<<in contrast to *Isanosaurus* from Thailand, *Bellusaurus* from China,
David Marjanovic (email@example.com) wrote:
<Why *Bellusaurus*? Has it been redated?>
It's not about dating. The morphology indicates that *Bellusaurus* is
very basal, next to another supurbly basal sauropod, *Barapasaurus*, or as
a cetiosaur, or as a "shunosaur." Not clear. New study is elucidating this
area of the tree. Appears Wilson and Sereno got it mostly right.
The most basal sauropods are, in order of increasing complexity using
*Saltasaurus* as a terminal on the meter, *Isanosaurus* --> *Vulcanodon*
--> *Cetiosaurus*, *Bellusaurus*? --> *Shunosaurus*, *Barapasaurus*,
Neosauropoda. Incidentally, it would not be a stretch to restore
*Isanosaurus* with a broad manus, multi-phalangeal second and third
"fingers," and "twist-thumb" pollex. But this does nothing to the argument
of *Anchisaurus*. I appreciate the work Adam is putting in on this, and
would like to see the results very eagerly. I am wondering if it parallels
my preliminaryu conclusions on basal sauropod and "plateosaur" evolution.
Also, "Prosauropoda" depends on which definition you use, proponents of a
monophyletic grouping lately, including Benton and Yates, argue a
different definition (riojasaurs and plateosaurids, the big bad boys) than
the proponents of polyphyly or paraphyly (in which Prosauropoda is
*Plateosaurus* <-- sauropods) which is also the historical and in my mind
preferrable view. The taxon "Plateosauria," I think, is the appropriate
label for the rijoasaurs and plateosaurids. Remains to be seen. I do not
want to see what I see going on with some theropod groups where every
paper attempts to redefine every taxon again and again. Gives no hope to
those who (including myself) advocate use of priority and strict usage in
definition in defining nomenclatural practice.
<This is the nominative. I needed the genetive (Feduccia's and other_s'_).
Fair enough. I would not use genitive forms of Latin in sentence
structure unless speaking Latin, especially when the language framed is
not Latin. English, in this case. If I were to phrase in Latin, I would
use the proper forms. Oh, I'm quibbling. So, my bad for pointing this out
in public. It grates sometimes.... Maybe it's the Celtic in me....
Jaime A. Headden
Little steps are often the hardest to take. We are too used to making leaps
in the face of adversity, that a simple skip is so hard to do. We should all
learn to walk soft, walk small, see the world around us rather than zoom by it.
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs