|
> 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?
Yes. There were crocodylian remains in that
genus but they have been thrown out. Maybe I'll try a translation of the whole
paper once I can steal the time (and even then I should maybe continue Details
on Protoavis first).
>> Proceratosaurus is NOT a
ceratosaur,
> Who after Huene has suggested that? Since
PDW it has always been somewhere in
> Coelurosauria.
Madsen and Welles (2001)
Where was that published? Is Welles the
same as the author of Dilophosaurus?
have an extremely archaic classification in their
Ceratosaurus monograph. Indeed, their classification [...] has redundant
taxa (Dilophosauridae with one subfamily,
Dilophosaurinae),
Forbidden by ICZN. Not by the PhyloCode
when the definitions are different, but my prejudice is that that
paper doesn't look like using phylogenetic nomenclature. :-|
absolutely horrible characters diagnosing
families (Podokesauridae-
how I hate that name...
small size, no cranial crests [ever heard of
Syntarsus kayentakatae?], jugal low and slender,
etc.),
Reminds me a lot of the first dinosaur book
of my own:
David Lambert: A Field Guide to the
Dinosaurs, Diagram Visual Information Ltd. 1983.
Which is a rather popular book and says
so.
ignores abelisaurs and has Proceratosaurus listed
as a ceratosaurid.
Was it peer-reviewed?
:-]
|