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

Re: Tetanurae

It seems a lot of ways to define Tetanurae are problematic, and with no easy way to resolve. The usual three options all have problems:

Stem-based: This, as stated earlier, could create problems when abelisaurs are taken into account.

Node-based: Normally, this would be a good solution. However, this is also problematic with things like Piatnitzkysaurus, Cryolophosaurus, etc. floating around out there (laughs at ridiculous thought of 25-foot theropods floating around in inner tubes)

Apomorphy-based: This may be more viable then the other two, as a popular "rule of thumb" (no pun intended) places Tetanurae as "theropods with three or fewer digits on hand." Unfortunately, as many of the big theropods have dinky little arms that are rarely found, this comes with its own set of problems. Nevertheless, a refined version of an apomorphy-based definition that includes a few more characteristics may be the way to go.