[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
> I was wondering, what is up with 'DIlophosaurus sinensis'
> that obviously is different? Is it be a new genus or what?
It is not Dilophosaurus. Whether it is a new genus or a very old one remains to
be published... :-) (There is such a study in the
> And are coelophysids still ceratosaurs or something else?
Something else: basal to the dilophosaur + (ceratosaur + tetanurine) clade.
Probably. Although some studies do find a good
old-fashioned Coelophysoide sensu me.
> Because removing them from ceratosauria leaves the ceratosaur
> appearing out of no where in the Mid jurassic
It now appears that the coelophysoids of old are a paraphyletic series with
regards to Averostra (Ceratosauria + Tetanurae). So some
of the old-style "coelophysoids" probably actually contain the ancestors of
ceratosaurs and tetanurines.
Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Email: email@example.com Phone: 301-405-4084
Office: Centreville 1216
Senior Lecturer, Vertebrate Paleontology
Dept. of Geology, University of Maryland
Faculty Director, Science & Global Change Program, College Park Scholars
Mailing Address: Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Department of Geology
Building 237, Room 1117
University of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742 USA