[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Rob Gay wrote:
IIRC, Bill Parker and co. had a paper out just before this one, saying the
same thing. I don't have the paper, or even the correct ref., but there may
be someone out there who does.
Parker et al. (2005). The Late Triassic pseudosuchian _Revueltosaurus
callenderi_ and its implications for the diversity of early ornithischian
dinosaurs. Proc. R. Soc. B 272: 963?969.
I remember at SVP they considered _R. hunti_ to be a synonym of _R.
callenderi_, and therefor falling into the non-dinosaurian end of things.
If I recall correctly, though.
Your recollection certainly fits with what Parker &c have to say about _R.
hunti_: "This taxon may be assignable to _Revueltosaurus_, as examination of
other material collected from a referred locality of _R. hunti_ has turned
up a squamosal that is nearly identical to that seen in the Petrified Forest
material." There is no formal synonymy, however.
In the paper referring _R. hunti_ to a new genus _Krzyzanowskisaurus_,
Heckert (2005) says: "Even if _K. hunti_ is congeneric with _R. callenderi_,
then, as Heckert (2002) proposed, the descent of _R. callenderi_ from ?_R._?
_hunti_ stock requires significant simplification of the dentition from
Adamanian to Revueltian time. Regardless, I consider my own (Heckert, 2002)
hypothesis of an anagenetic relationship between _?R._? _hunti_ and _R.
callenderi_ falsified, hence the new generic name."