[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Mike Keesey wrote:
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.)
Right. Ceratosauria is defined to *include* _Ceratosaurus_, and Tetanurae
is defined to *exclude* _Ceratosaurus_. Thus, they have to be sister taxa.
We could conceivably recover a phylogeny in which traditional Ceratosauria
is paraphyletic, with coelophysids, dilophosaurids, ceratosaurids, and
abelisauroids as successive outgroups. In this case, abelisauroids would be
Speaking of abelisauroids, Jerry Harris wrote:
Coria, R., Currie, P.J., and Carabajal, A.P. 2006. A new abelisauroid
theropod from northwestern[snip]
Patagonia. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 43(9): 1283-1289.
I don't have this one yet, and so don't know what, if anything, is the name
of this new beast.
The authors aren't sure on this point either. A new genus name appears in
the cladogram, but isn't mentioned in the text.
All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-day trial!