[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Is Kayentavenator a tetanurine or a juvenile kayentakatae?
Augusto Haro wrote-
> Seems to me that both the ethical problem of the use of Megapnosaurus
> (as explained in Tykoski's thesis) and the discovery, or at least lack
> of support, for the hypothesis of a sister-group relationship between
> Megapnosaurus rhodesiensis and "Syntarsus" kayentakatae is a great
> opportunity to follow Taylor's lead and erect a new genus for the
> latter. Or, and here I don't know, but if Kayentavenator elysiae ends
> up being valid and synonymous with "Syntarsus" kayentakatae, then we
> would have already a genus for the latter. Would the combination thus
> be Kayentavenator kayentakatae?
That would be the combination, yes.
The genus "Syntarsus" (or even worse, Syntarsus) should not be used for
kayentakatae though, as Tykoski and Rowe (2004) have already published the
combination Megapnosaurus kayentakatae. Since Syntarsus is a beetle, it's more
correct to use Megapnosaurus, even in quotation marks.
> It's noticeable that to my knowledge, this is the second supposed
> tetanurine, on the basis of small data sets, to be alternatively
> proposed as a non- tetanurine nor averostran, after Zupaysaurus
> (Ezcurra and Novas 2006 matrix was much more complete than Arcucci and
> Coria's 2003). Congratulations Michael for the discovery; I think, as
> others, you should publish it, or at least be properly cited for the
> ideas, if you permit others to check your matrix for the sake of
Also Cryolophosaurus. My Kayentavenator work should certainly not be published
without actually checking the material. Note I didn't actually use any matrix
to analyze its position, I merely criticized Gay's matrix. But if somebody
publishes on Kayentavenator and agrees with my conclusions, I would indeed like
to be cited.