[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: when is a Lazarus Taxon not a Lazarus Taxon?
Mike Taylor wrote:
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you: _Dravidosaurus_. This Indian form from
the Coniacian seems to be a stegosaur (Yadagiri and Ayyasami 1979, Galton
and Upchurch 2004), contra Chatterjee and Ruda 1996. If that's correct,
then it has a whopping forty-million-year ghost lineage since the
next-youngest known stegosaur, _Regnosaurus_ from the Wealden
(Hauterivian-Barremian) of England (Sereno and Upchurch 1995).
_Wuerhosaurus_ may be younger than _Regnosaurus_, or at least coeval. But
you're right; if _Dravidosaurus_ is a stegosaur, that's a very long ghost
lineage indeed. However, although it's listed as a stegosaur by Galton and
Upchurch (2004), I think this assignment is still questionable.
I was wondering if _Sonorasaurus_ might qualify as a Lazarus taxon, given
(a) it is said to be of Cenomanian age (Carpenter and Tidwell, 2004); and
(b) it is strikingly similar (identical?) to Late Jurassic _Brachiosaurus_
(Curtice, 2000) .
Add a Yahoo! contact to Windows Live Messenger for a chance to win a free