RE: Ligabuesaurus leanzai

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

Tim Williams writes:
 > The humerus/femur ratio of _Ligabuesaurus_ is 0.9 (1.49m/1.66m),
 > which is a little bigger than _Chubutisaurus_ (0.86).  It's not
 > clear if such long forelimbs evolved independently of true
 > brachiosaurids, or is plesiomorphic for titanosauriforms.  If the
 > latter is true, this could undermine the monophyly of
 > Brachiosauridae (my opinion, not the authors') - especially since
 > there are similarities in the cervicals between _Ligabuesaurus_,
 > _Brachiosaurus_ ("Giraffatitan"), and _Sauroposeidon_.

Er.  In what way?  The cervicals look pretty darned non-brachiosaurid
to me.

 > Though given that Titanosauridae is not accepted as a valid taxon,
 > that definition is probably passe.

I was interested to see that the _Puertasaurus_ authors continue to
use Titanosauridae, citing a Salgado 2003 that I've not seen:

        Salgado, L., 2003.  Should we abandon the name
        Titanosauridae?: some comments on the taxonomy of
        titanosaurian sauropods (Dinosauria).  Revista Espanola de
        Paleontologia 18, 15-21.

Which I assume is a response to Wilson and Upchurch 2003.  If anyone
has a PDF of that paper, I'd be delighted to see it.  Thanks.

 _/|_    ___________________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor  <mike@miketaylor.org.uk>  http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "Actually, it's a bacteria-run planet, but mammals are better
         at public relations" -- Dave Unwin.