[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

RE: Arcovenator, new abelisaurid theropod from Late Cretaceous of southern France



I was referring to the Tortosa paper. I was reading the *Austrocheirus isaasi* 
paper at the same time.

As for phylogenetic definitions being attached to names with implied ranks, and 
the issues that come from that, that's why I deplore rank-based names, and 
ranks.

Cheers,

  Jaime A. Headden
  The Bite Stuff (site v2)
  http://qilong.wordpress.com/

"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)


"Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a
different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race
has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or
his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a Billion 
Backs)


----------------------------------------
> Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 19:40:04 -0500
> From: archosauromorph2@hotmail.com
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: RE: Arcovenator, new abelisaurid theropod from Late Cretaceous of 
> southern France
>
> Sorry, the reference to the Arcovenator paper should be Tortosa et al., 
> rather than Ezcurra et al. Not sure which paper Jaime was talking about in 
> his last message...
>
>> Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 10:48:29 -0500
>> From: archosauromorph2@hotmail.com
>> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
>> Subject: RE: Arcovenator, new abelisaurid theropod from Late Cretaceous of 
>> southern France
>>
>> Carnotaurinae as originally defined was not the [Carnotaurus + 
>> Majungasaurus] clade, it was the [Carnotaurus> Abelisaurus] clade (Sereno 
>> 1998). Ezcurra et al. don't use either Abelisaurinae or Carnotaurinae on 
>> their cladogram because they don't have resolution of which species are 
>> closer to Carnotaurus and which are closer to Abelisaurus.
>