Re: Titanosaurs and their relationship to Brachiosaurs and Diplodocoids.

[mike@miketaylor.org.uk (Mike Taylor)]

David Marjanovic writes:
 > > in many respects Wilson (2002) is still the most up to date
 > > sauropod analysis.
 > 
 > What about the following?
 > 
 > Jerald D. Harris: The significance of *Suuwassea emilieae*
 > (Dinosauria: Sauropoda) for flagellicaudatan intrarelationships and
 > evolution, Journal of Systematic Palaeontology 4(2), 185 -- 198 (1
 > June 2006)

I'm talking about paper that exist for the analysis, and that
therefore discuss the methods and the reliability and ramifications of
the results in detail.  Jerry's paper is really doing something quite
different -- plus it's focussed primarily on flagellicaudatan
diplodocoids.  Apples and oranges.

 > 30 taxa, 331 characters. *Losillasaurus* is apparently very close
 > to *Mamenchisaurus* and not a neosauropod. I haven't checked if the
 > supplementary information is accessible (the journal itself being
 > prohibitively expensive).

The paper says that supplementary data is available on Cambridge
Journals Online on:
        http://www.journals.cup.org/abstract_S1477201906001805
but it's not: that page says "Cambridge Journal Online was not able to
find the requested file.  We are working on correcting the error at
this present time.  Please enter via the front page and navigate to
where you wish to go in the meantime."

This URL does work, however:
        
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displaySuppMaterial?cupCode=1&type=4&jid=SYP&volumeId=4&issueId=02&aid=438985

 _/|_    ___________________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor  <mike@miketaylor.org.uk>  http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "I don't want no pretty face to tell me pretty lies, all I want
         is someone to believe" -- Billy Joel, "Honesty"