[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Looking to catch up on Sauropods.



2005/9/6, Mike Lima <taradosgon@yahoo.com>:
> First off it has Diplodocidae as a family broken into
> Diplodocinae, Dicraosaurinae, and Mamenchisaurinae
> subfamilies. Now, I've also heard the diplodocid
> family expressed the same way only with
> "Rebbachisaurinae" replacing "Mamenchisaurinae" (which
> I realize doesn't belong). However yet again, I've
> also seen Rebbachisauridae and Dicraeosauridae as
> families along with Diplodocidae under Diplodocoidea.
> Which way is accepted today?

It varies from author to author.

> What families do Euhelopus and Omeisaurus belong?

_Euhelopus_ - Euhelopidae - not universally accepted, since it seems
to be paraphyletic (_Omeisaurus_ was put in this family, but it seems
to be more derived than _Euhelopus_).

> How are Diplodocoids defined?

Definition:
All neosauropods closer to _Diplodocus_ than to _Saltasaurus_ (Sereno
1998) or Neosauropods more closely related to _Diplodocus_ than to
_Saltasaurus_, including _Rayosaurus_, _Amphicoelias_, dicreosaurids,
and diplodocids. (Wilson & Sereno 1998)

References:
Sereno PC 1998 - A rationale for phylogenetic definitions, with
application to the higher-level taxonomy of Dinosauria. N. Jb. Geol.
Paläont. Abh. 210: 41-83.
Wilson JA & Sereno PC 1998 - Early evolution and higher-level
phylogeny of sauropod dinosaurs. Society of Vetebrate Paleontology
Memoir 5, J. Verteb. Paleontol. 18, suppl. to #2 - 68 pp.

[]s,

Roberto Takata