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

Re: "Hypsilophodontidae" et al

Rutger Jansma wrote-

> 1) "The Dinosauria" listed for the genus *Drinker nisti* the following
> partial reference with their table of the known genera at that time:
> Galton, Siegwarth, et Filla, 1990. Thinking this genus is interesting, I
> tried looking it up in the references section of the book, but no such
> luck... They didn't listed it at all! So could someone please list the
> complete reference for this genus so that I can look it up at the library?

You need to use the updated bibliography for taxa not included in the
original edition.  It's on pages xvix-xxii.
Bakker, R.T. (1990) A new latest Jurassic vertebrate fauna from the highest
levels of the Morrison Formation a Como Bluff, Wyoming. Part IV. The
dinosaurs: a new Othnielia-like hypsilophodontid. Hunteria 2, 8-13.
As it's from Hunteria, you're probably not going to be able to find it at
your library.  I recommend getting references like this from Tracy Ford.

> 2)  Naish & Martill thought that the Hypsies and their relatives do not
> really constitute a single family, instead, they thought it was more
> paraphyletic, with some genera more closely related to Lesothosaurus,
> others more closely to the iguanodontids. Is this correct?

While no good phylogenetic analyses have been published, the consensus is
that hypsilophodonts are indeed paraphyletic.  However, I've seen no good
evidence that suggest some are lesothosaurids.  Some may be basal like
Lesothosaurus, and others stem marginocephalians, but most seem to be basal

> 3) Have there been any recent publications dealing with phylogeny of these
> animals?

Not any good ones.  Weishampel and Heinrich (1992) is terrible, but it's the
closest thing to a phylogenetic analysis of hypsilophodonts that's been

Then there's my 2001 analysis
     |   `--Huayangosaurus
         |   `--+--+--Psittacosaurus
         |       |   `--Neoceratopsia
         |       `--Pachycephalosauria
             |   `--+--Agilisaurus
             |       `--+--"Yandusaurus" multidens
             |           |--Othnielia
             |           |--+--Parksosaurus
             |           |   `--Gasparinisaura
             |           |--Bugenasaura
             |           |--Hypsilophodon
             |           `--+--+--Zephyrosaurus
             |               |   `--Orodromeus
             |               `--Jeholosaurus
                     `--+--Tenontosaurus tilletorum
                         `--+--Tenontosaurus dossi

Pete Buchholz has the best phylogenetic analysis of these taxa in my
opinion, but I can't say much because it's unpublished.
See http://www.cmnh.org/dinoarch/2001Aug/msg00728.html

> 4) At the moment there is a reconstruction in progress for Leaellynasaura
> and this sparked an interest in the gracile Ornithopods. After looking up
> references, except for the *Drinker* one, in the above mentioned library
> additional genera, there were quite frankly not results. The genera I was
> looking for include: *Orodromeus*, *Zephyrosaurus* and *Othnielia*. After
> websearch, all that turned up for these three genera are some eggs for the
> first, a partial postcranial skeleton for the second and a reconstructed
> skeleton for the last from dorsolateral view. But can someone please,
> please, please send me some material from these genera, all is welcome!

Good luck finding Orodromeus material.  I hear a redescription is in the
works, but until then all that's published is a partial skull and perhaps
other fragments.  Remember that "Orodromeus" eggs are Troodon.
Zephyrosaurus is just known from a partial skull, mandible fragment, and
vertebral peices.  Othnielia has been described in various places, though no
skull is known.

Mickey Mortimer