Re: Herrerasauridae

["David Marjanovic" <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

> I have had this conversation with several people, some of whom say, "No,
> only two sacrals, not supported by cladistic analyses, not a dinosaur,"
and
> others that say, "Who cares if it only has two sacrals? It has everything
> else, and our cladistic analysis puts it within the Dinosauria."

And then there is Peter M. Galton, who says, "Who cares if it only has two
sacrals? The third sacral is _not_ a synapomorphy of Dinosauria, some
prosauropods don't have it either, some other prosauropods and other
dinosaur groups vary in whether the 3rd one is a dorso- or a caudosacral. No
need to postulate a strange reversal in herrerasaurids."

> At SVP this year, there was a presentation on the relationships between
> basal dinosaurs (including herrerasaurids), and I believe (IIRC) that all
> the trees presented showed that the Herrerasauridae fell within the
> Dinosauria.

Certainly consensus at the moment.

> That's my 2 Euros.

Bit much, eh? That's almost 2 US dollars. But 1/100 euro is likewise called
a cent :-)