[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> 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... :-)
As a sidebar to Tom's message, _"Dilophosaurus" sinensis_ has been
regarded as a basal tetanuran most closely related to _Sinosaurus_ and
_Cryolophosaurus_ (Rauhut, 2003).
Rauhut, O.W.M. (2003). The interrelationships and evolution of basal
theropod dinosaurs. Special papers in palaeontology 69. The
Palaeontological Association, pp 215.