Re: Rauhut's Thesis

[NJPharris@aol.com]

In a message dated 7/9/01 5:58:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
rob_redwing@hotmail.com writes:


> >He writes that it is distinct from D. wetherilli and probably not
> >congeneric, citing Lamanna et al. (1998), but is too poorly described to
> include in the analysis.<
>
> I've heard from several people that this is actually being redescribed as a
> different genus. 


I may have said this before at one point, but offhand, I'd say it looks more
like _Monolophosaurus_ than _Dilophosaurus_.  Just look at the form of the
crests:

http://dinosauricon.com/images/dilophosaurus-mm.html

--Nick P.