[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 trip! http://www.imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/yahoo/default.aspx?locale=en-us&hmtagline