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

Re: Tetanurae

On 12/6/06, dinoboygraphics@aol.com <dinoboygraphics@aol.com> wrote:

I wouldn't use Crylophosaurus; theer have been a few good presentations (hopefully papers will be in press soon) on the material, but it doesn't look tetanuran to me.

I realize Scott and David already know this, but I'll emphasize the point, anyway: _Tetanurae_ is a branch-based clade, so its basalmost members are probably virtually indistinguishable from the basalmost membes of the sister clade, _Ceratosauria_. Also, of course, _Tetanurae_ and _Ceratosauria_ are equally old. (This is true by definition; it doesn't matter whether coelophysoids are ceratosaurs or not.) -- T. Michael Keesey The Dinosauricon: http://dino.lm.com Parry & Carney: http://parryandcarney.com ISPN Forum: http://www.phylonames.org/forum/