[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Bakker's Brontosaurus and Late Cretaceous populations
David Marjanovic wrote:
Against the flow, heroic efforts have been made to reinstate
and I don't know what to make of _Eobrontosaurus_.
Hasn't someone just let it disappear in *Camarasaurus*...?
This was in the Sauropoda chapter of the new Dinosauria volume. (I'm just
passing the info on, so don't take this as an endorsement on my part that
_Eobrontosaurus_ has 'disappeared' into _Camarasaurus_.)
Do you mean *"Dilophosaurus" sinensis* has been renamed??? ~:-|
Not that I know of. What I was driving at is that it has been recognized
that _D. sinensis_ does not belong in _Dilophosaurus_, just as _C.
maortuensis_ does not belong in _Chilantaisaurus_ (and I do know a new genus
name has been proposed for _maortuensis_).
*Efraasia* is not even a prosauropod, so that's not a case of
It was once thought that _Efraasia diagnostica_ (=_Palaeosaurus
diagnosticus_) was based on a juvenile specimen of _Sellosaurus_
(=_Plateosaurus_), so it was sunk as a junior synonym of _Plateosaurus_ or
_Sellosaurus_ (e.g., Galton, 1990). Recent studies have reinstated the
genus _Efraasia_ as valid. So on this point, it is a case of
Would be really great to have a phylogeny of *Psittacosaurus*. Even the
attempt to synonymise > the species into four is so old (1993?) that 2 or 3
species have been described since.
When it comes to _Psittacosaurus_, my genus-meter goes off the dial. :-)
Admittedly, there is no evidence that the genus is polyphyletic or even