[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of
> Nicholas Gardner
> Tom Holtz wrote:
> > > 5.What other species of amniotes were present?
> >Other dinos in the quarry are _Iliosuchus incognitus_ and indeterminate
> >hypsilophodont-grade ornithopod.
> A tyrannosauroid?
Very likley NOT a tyrannosauroid; has essentially only a single feature in
common with the big guys (unlike _Stokesosaurus_), and that feature (the
prominent midblade vertical crest) is present in other, non-tyrannosauroid
taxa. Not inconcievable it is a VERY basal tyrannosauroid, but no
compelling evidence for it.
> > > 9.Should Torvosaurus and Poekilopleuron be sunk into Megalosauridae?
> >See above.
> Whoops, I mean to ask if they should be sunk into Megalosaurus.
Given, as stated, the question of the monophyly of all the material included
in _M. bucklandi_ beyond the dentary, this is a really problematic question.
Yes, some of the Stonesfield Slate material does share features with
_Torvosaurus_ and/or _Poekilopleuron_; if all the big Stonesfield Slate
material belongs to a single species, then there is a good case to be made
that _Torvo._, _Meg._, and _Poekilo._ form a monophyletic group. Given that
"if", one could argue the case to lump them all into _Megalosaurus_.
But, everyone, PLEASE remember that there are no "generic-ometers": if you
have a monophyletic grouping one can expand or contract your "genus" concept
as you see fit. There isn't a "right" or "wrong" answer to this which is
independantly verifiable with new information.
Hope this helps.
Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Department of Geology Director, Earth, Life & Time Program
University of Maryland College Park Scholars
College Park, MD 20742
Phone: 301-405-4084 Email: email@example.com
Fax (Geol): 301-314-9661 Fax (CPS-ELT): 301-405-0796