[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: YEAH!!! Sauropodomorph Phylogeny!
Mickey Mortimer (Mickey_Mortimer111@msn.com) wrote:
<I recommend using Yates and Kitching's newest tree, with some added data
from Yates (2003), Galton (2001) and others->
Not all of which are comparable to each other. However, in relating to
*Lessemsaurus* ... there is no actual statement of affinity in Yates and
Kitching stating how it is related, just listing a single difference and
saying they are similar. We've been down this road before, the assumption
of similarity without explicit reasoning on why doesn't make this
inferrence any more real than if stated HERE.
<Properly named taxa of uncertain affinity include Azendohsaurus,
Gongxianosaurus, Kunmingosaurus, Mussaurus, Ohmdenosaurus, Ruehleia,
Yimenosaurus and Zizhongosaurus.>
*Azhendohsaurus*, contra Gauffre, may not be a "prosauropod"; *Ruehleia*
is a distinct from from *Plateosaurus* but is nearly identical otherwise
and was only preliminarily described by Galton, awaiting more explicit
description, and would apparently be a plateosaurid of very close
affinity. *Mussaurus* has been linked to *Coloradisaurus*, I beleive, but
the reference implied the adult specimens identified as belonging to that
taxon also related tehm to "melanorosaurids" -- this reference is
currently missing from my files. The others have been identified as either
cetiosaurids or basal sauropods of difficult relationships.
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.
"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!