[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: II CLPV talk summaries: Day 2
Scott Hartman wrote:
Diego Pol presented data from new specimens of Mussaurus. [snip] Good
thing too, as his phylogenetic analysis found that Mussaurus is quite a bit
closer to true sauropods than Plateosaurus is.
It'll be interesting to see how this ties in with Yates (2004), who alluded
to the non-prosauropod nature of _Mussaurus_ based on a number of
characters, including procumbent teeth in the upper and lower jaws.
Yates, A.M. (2004). _Anchisaurus polyzelus_ (Hitchcock): The smallest known
sauropod dinosaur and the evolution of gigantism among sauropodomorph
dinosaurs. Postilla 230: 58 pp.
Sterling Nesbitt gave one of my favorite talks of the conference. He
showed that Shuvosaurus is not an ornithomimid (no real surprise there),
but is rather a derived suchian.
This directly contradicts previous work that puts _Shuvosaurus_ in the
Theropoda, based on a long list of theropod characters in the skull. If
_Shuvosaurus_ is a crurotarsan, then homoplasy is rampant indeed.
Randall Irmis was up next, and picked up where Sterling left off; they feel
that a lot of North American Triassic dinosaurs aren?t and made a pretty
convincing argument for it. A (non-
comprehensive) list includes Eucoelophysis, which they feel pretty strongly
is a silesaurid. Which makes the name EU-coelophysis ironic, to say the
Yes - especially considering that Sullivan and Lucas (1999) believe that the
original type specimen of _Coelophysis bauri_ (AMNH 2722) is probably
referrable to _Eucoelophyis baldwini_. I wonder if it is possible that the
hypodigm for _Eucoelophysis_ might be chimeric, and include both theropod
and non-dinosaurian material. If not, and if the original _C. bauri_
holotype is in fact non-dinosaurian, *and* the holotype of _E. bladwini_
belongs to the same non-dinosaurian taxon, then the name _Eucoelophysis_ may
indeed be appropriate. However, AMNH 2722 does look rather theropodan.
Gojirosaurus they feel is a chimera (Ken, want to comment?), made up of
theropod material and Shuvosaurus (or shuvosaur-like suchian) material.
The idea that _Gojirasaurus_ and _Shuvosaurus_ are the same animal has been
floating around for a while now. This means that the teeth that were found
with the type _Gojirasaurus_ material belong elsewhere, since _Shuvosaurus_
Speaking of chimeras... like Mickey, I'm curious what happened to
Thanks for the postings, Scott. They were extremely helpful and