[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: [Re]classification of Eolambia
Head, J.I. 2001. A reanalysis of the phylogenetic position of Eolambia
Caroljonesa. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 21 (2): 392-396. Jason Head
decides, based upon additional Oklahoma Museum material, that the
Lambeosaurine synapomorphies recognised by Jim Kirkland in his original
paper are in fact absent. Head considers Eolambia as an iguanodontian, more
derived than Iguanodon/Ouranosaurus/Altirhinus and close to Probactrosaurus.
In the most comprehensive analysis yet of Iguanodontians Norman (2000) also
considers Eolambia more derived than Iguanodon/Ouranosaurus/Altirhinus, but
less derived than Protohadros/Probactrosaurus. Using then the terminology of
Sereno (1986, 1997, 1999), Eolambia should be considered a member of
Ankylopollexia (due to its close relationship with Probactrosaurus). However
Sereno's basal placement of Probactrosaurus is probably wrong and it is
better considered a member of Hadrosauroidea.
NERC CASE PhD Student
Department of Earth Sciences
University of Cambridge
Cambridge CB2 3EQ
On 8/17/03 9:42 PM, "Tommy Bradley" <email@example.com> wrote:
> Are there any listers out there who know what is Eolambia?s classification?
> I know (well, I think I know) its no longer considered the earliest
> Lambeosaur, so what is its placement?
> Or is the answer ?Depends on who you listen to??
> Thanks in advance,
> Tommy Bradley
> Sign up for Internet Service under $10 dollars a month, at