[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: New sauropod paper
Jay <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
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
Confused? I am.