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

Re: New sauropod paper



Jay <sappororaptor@yahoo.com> wrote:

I totally agree here. If that's the case, then say bye to Jobaria.

Well... _Jobaria_ can stay, whatever happens. The type species for _Rebbachisaurus_ is _R. garasbae_, so the fate of _R. tamesnensis_ does not impact on the validity of either _Jobaria_ or _Rebbachisaurus_.


Similarly, how was Deltadromeus diagosed differentially from Bahariasaurus?

The situation regarding _Deltadromeus_ vs _Bahariasaurus_ vs _Carcharodontosaurus_ needs a second (or third) look, given that the hypodigms for all three taxa are highly uncertain. _Carcharodontosaurus_ is certainly valid, but _Deltadromeus_ vs _Bahariasaurus_ *might* be the same (in which case, _B_ takes priority). Sereno et al. (1996) distinguished _Deltadromeus_ from _Bahariasaurus_ using pelvic characters; but there is a rumor going round that Sereno &c mistook the pubis for an ischium, which negates two of these characters. Also, some caudal vertebrae assigned to _Bahariasaurus_ may actually belong to _Carcharodontosaurus_. Throw _Sigilmassasaurus_ and _Spinosaurus_ into the mix, and things get really interesting...


Confused?  I am.

Cheers

Tim