|
David Marjanovic wrote-
>>
Megalosauridae Huxley 1869 nomen conservandum
> Why nomen conservandum?
What else could have priority?
I assume Torvosauridae, because Sereno may have
phylogenetically defined it sometime.
> Have you forgotten the
relatively recent discussion about HP Ronan Allain's paper on
>
the Streptospondylus altdorfensis material from
Normandy? :-)
Yes, actually I did forget about that paper.
If only I could read French.... It seems to indicate Streptospondylus IS
the correct genus for the theropod, and not a crocodylian as was said
before. Can anybody substantiate this?
>> Proceratosaurus is NOT a
ceratosaur,
> Who after Huene has suggested that? Since PDW
it has always been somewhere in
> Coelurosauria.
Madsen and Welles (2001) have an extremely archaic
classification in their Ceratosaurus monograph. Indeed, their
classification is internally inconsistant (Podokesauroidea is claimed to contain
only Podokesauridae, but is also listed as including Dilophosauridae), has
redundant taxa (Dilophosauridae with one subfamily, Dilophosaurinae), absolutely
horrible characters diagnosing families (Podokesauridae- small size, no cranial
crests [ever heard of Syntarsus kayentakatae?], jugal low and slender, etc.),
ignores abelisaurs and has Proceratosaurus listed as a
ceratosaurid.
Mickey Mortimer
|