[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
re: Where have all the ornithischians gone?
David Peters wrote (regarding _Technosaurus_):
> This is the kind of material that needs to be looked at with the eye
> that MAYBE the pubis is not retroverted in this taxon, (Is that why it
> appears to be mixed up with sauropodomorph material? I don't know and
> haven't seen).
If I recall correctly (all literature is in boxes at the moment, so bear with
me), _Technosaurus_ was based entirely on skull elements, some of which may be
prosauropod, and some of which apear to be (to me anyway) actually
> Silesaurus is definitely on the list of ornithischians without a
I have to disagree. About a year and a half ago with Mickey Mortimer's help, I
put _Silesaurus_ into the published matrices of Sereno & Arcucci 1994, Novas
1996, a combined matrix of Sereno & Arcucci 1994 and Novas 1996, and Benton
1999. In each case, Silesaurus came out as the sister taxon to Ornithischia +
Saurischia. There may be some features in _Silesaurus_ that pull it toward
Ornithischia, but there are quite a few characters of Dinosauria that it lacks.
For DML emails on the subject please see: