Re: Krzyzanowskisaurus

[Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

Rob Gay wrote:

> IIRC, Bill Parker and co. had a paper out just before this one, saying the 
> same thing. I don't have the paper, or even the correct ref., but there may 
> be someone out there who does.

Parker et al. (2005).  The Late Triassic pseudosuchian _Revueltosaurus 
callenderi_ and its implications for the diversity of early ornithischian 
dinosaurs.  Proc. R. Soc. B 272: 963?969.

> I remember at SVP they considered _R. hunti_ to be a synonym of _R. 
> callenderi_, and therefor falling into the non-dinosaurian end of things. 
> If I recall correctly, though.

Your recollection certainly fits with what Parker &c have to say about _R. 
hunti_: "This taxon may be assignable to _Revueltosaurus_, as examination of 
other material collected from a referred locality of _R. hunti_ has turned 
up a squamosal that is nearly identical to that seen in the Petrified Forest 
material."  There is no formal synonymy, however.

In the paper referring _R. hunti_ to a new genus _Krzyzanowskisaurus_, 
Heckert (2005) says: "Even if _K. hunti_ is congeneric with _R. callenderi_, 
then, as Heckert (2002) proposed, the descent of _R. callenderi_ from ?_R._? 
_hunti_ stock requires significant simplification of the dentition from 
Adamanian to Revueltian time.  Regardless, I consider my own (Heckert, 2002) 
hypothesis of an anagenetic relationship between _?R._? _hunti_ and _R. 
callenderi_ falsified, hence the new generic name."

Cheers

Tim