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

RE: Rauhut's Thesis



 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu [mailto:owner-dinosaur@usc.edu]On Behalf Of David Marjanovic
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 5:56 AM
To: The Dinosaur Mailing List
Subject: Re: Rauhut's Thesis

 

My probably final comments before I leave for the shores of southern France...

 

I wrote:

Shuvosaurus is a coelophysid based on two characters shared with Syntarsus- forked posterior end of the premaxilla, considerably elongated basisphenoid.

I can't judge that, but these characters sound pretty weak, IMHO.

...because the elongated basisphenoid is probably -- I don't know -- present in every elongated braincase, which may IMHO easily evolve more often than once; the forked posterior end of the premaxilla is surely not something that won't evolve twice either, I think (again, I don't know). Also, that it shares these characters with Syntarsus but -- apparently -- not with the very similar Coelophysis is, if true, striking.

I'm already waiting that Dryptosaurus becomes a ceratosaur... ~:-|

This "statement" was based on the usually assumed similarities between Deltadromeus and Dryptosaurus.

 

By any chance, have you seen the material?

 

HP Rob Gay answered to this:

 

> Wait and see, coelophysoids are actually the closest ancestor to
> birds...oy...someone help, it's getting late.

 

Raath 1977 or so, IIRC, had proposed this, based AFAIK largely on things like fusion in the hip region and other convergences.

 

Are we judging convergences, similarities, etc. based on published papers or actually seeing the material? I bring this up from an interesting discussion I had this weekend up at DPP.

 

 

Tracy L. Ford

P. O. Box 1171

Poway Ca  92074