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

Re: SVP Preview

Tim Williams wrote-

> Then this clade should be called Megalosauroidea, shouldn't it?

I would prefer that over Spinosauroidea.  Megalosauroidea dates back to at
least Walker 1964.

> Interestingly, Allain alludes to _Megalosaurus_ being a possible _nomen
> dubium_, with the name restricted to the type dentary.

But seemingly still diagnostic enough to assign to his Megalosauridae.
Can't wait till Allain and Chure (in prep.) is published, so we can see what
they do with the genus.  The same goes for their redescription of

> _T. indicus_/_A. septentrionalis_ is a rather different mess - the
> (or otherwise) of these species is something I'm looking in to.

Yes, especially with all the Lameta material there is, including two
braincases.  It would be easy to compare most of it to T? colberti at least,
to see if there is more than one taxon present there.

Mickey Mortimer