[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: YEAH!!! Sauropodomorph Phylogeny!
Jaime Headden wrote-
> 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.
Well, Lessemsaurus and Antetonitrus are stated to share the presence of
transversely flared dorsal neural spines, considered by Yates and Kitching
to be a derived character.
> <Properly named taxa of uncertain affinity include Azendohsaurus,
> Gongxianosaurus, Kunmingosaurus, Mussaurus, Ohmdenosaurus, Ruehleia,
> Yimenosaurus and Zizhongosaurus.>
> *Azhendohsaurus*, contra Gauffre, may not be a "prosauropod";
Contra Heckert (2001) too, who knows his basal ornithischians. Note the
non-dinosaurian postcrania described by Jalil (2002) was only referred due
to its "close association" with Azendohsaurus cranial fragments. We all
know the problems with this.
> *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.
Mussaurus is from the El Tranquilo Formation, not the Los Colorados
Formation, so referral to Coloradisaurus is doubtful for that reason alone.
Mussaurus has been suggested to be a juvenile of the so-called Plateosaurus
sp. (Casamiquela, 1977) from its formation, which apparently includes rather
complete remains that could be compared to Coloradisaurus. Still, I hear
this is an incorrect identification for Mussaurus...