RE: Opisthocoelicaudia (was Re: Titanosaurids)

["Tracy L. Ford" <dino.hunter@home.com>]

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu [mailto:owner-dinosaur@usc.edu]On Behalf Of
Dinogeorge@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 11:21 AM
To: TiJaWi@agron.iastate.edu; fam.jansma@worldonline.nl
Cc: dinosaur@usc.edu
Subject: Re: Opisthocoelicaudia (was Re: Titanosaurids)

In a message dated 1/23/02 1:48:05 PM EST, TiJaWi@agron.iastate.edu writes:

<<  There's a lot of common features in the appendicular skeleton - don't
get
distracted by that weird tail.  >>

It's not just the tail, its the sacral vertebrae and the bifid dorsal
vertebrae (unknown in titoanosaurs). Don't get distracted by the limbs! And
if we're going to invoke homeobox genes in the formation of the tail, why
not
invoke them to explain all kinds of other character anomalies in cladograms
as well? This would make morphological cladistic analysis pretty much
worthless. (It might just be, but this gives it no chance: if any question
about a morpho-cladogram is answered by invoking hidden genetic causes, then
the science goes right out the window.)

To me, it's pretty ludicrous that there is only one group of Late Cretaceous
Sauropods. One thing is the cladistical analysis and they are looking at
numbers and not the actual specimens. The Diplodocid looking titanosaurs,
are IMHO diplodocids, the Camarasaur looking titanosaurs are IMHO
camarasaurds, etc. There is new evidence, still being worked on, that
will...Ok, I won't be mean...

Tracy L. Ford
P. O. Box 1171
Poway Ca  92074