Re: Triassic Sauropods

["Jaime A. Headden" <qilongia@yahoo.com>]

George Olshevsky (dinogeorge@aol.com) wrote:

<I have no problem with this, of course; but I would refer 
Opisthocoelicaudia to family Nemegtosauridae based on my own
interpretation of the phyletic positions of Nemegtosaurus and
Opisthocoelicaudia. Once this is done, it becomes most peculiar
to have two different sauropod genera in the same family from
the same formation, one known only from cranial material, the
other known only from postcranial material.>

  The peculiarity of the relative preservation is interesting,
but to assume that a family diagnosable on cranial remains only
should now include a postcranium that has its own distinctions,
instead of considered separate until they clade together as two
separate OTU's (so far, they've failed to do this).

<We need some more material before the situation can be
resolved.>

  On this we are completely and unquestionably in agreement.

=====
Jaime A. Headden

  Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhr-gen-ti-na
  Where the Wind Comes Sweeping Down the Pampas!!!!

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. 
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/