[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Ligabuesaurus leanzai
Tim Williams writes:
> The humerus/femur ratio of _Ligabuesaurus_ is 0.9 (1.49m/1.66m),
> which is a little bigger than _Chubutisaurus_ (0.86). It's not
> clear if such long forelimbs evolved independently of true
> brachiosaurids, or is plesiomorphic for titanosauriforms. If the
> latter is true, this could undermine the monophyly of
> Brachiosauridae (my opinion, not the authors') - especially since
> there are similarities in the cervicals between _Ligabuesaurus_,
> _Brachiosaurus_ ("Giraffatitan"), and _Sauroposeidon_.
Er. In what way? The cervicals look pretty darned non-brachiosaurid
> Though given that Titanosauridae is not accepted as a valid taxon,
> that definition is probably passe.
I was interested to see that the _Puertasaurus_ authors continue to
use Titanosauridae, citing a Salgado 2003 that I've not seen:
Salgado, L., 2003. Should we abandon the name
Titanosauridae?: some comments on the taxonomy of
titanosaurian sauropods (Dinosauria). Revista Espanola de
Paleontologia 18, 15-21.
Which I assume is a response to Wilson and Upchurch 2003. If anyone
has a PDF of that paper, I'd be delighted to see it. Thanks.
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <firstname.lastname@example.org> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "Actually, it's a bacteria-run planet, but mammals are better
at public relations" -- Dave Unwin.