RE: Nanningosaurus (was Re: Planet of the New Papers)

[Michael Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com>]

Tim Williams wrote-

> (1) WRT your tree, it shows _Gyposaurus_ and _Aralosaurus_ as consecutive 
> outgroups.  This implies that traditional Hadrosaurinae is paraphyletic.  
> I'm not sure of the current definitions of Hadrosaurinae or Lambeosaurinae, 
> although Sereno's (1998) stem-based definitions use _Saurolophus_ and 
> _Parasaurolophus_ as mutually exclusive specifiers.  (Incidentally, 
> TaxonSearch revises these definitions, with the intention of including the 
> name-giving genera as additional specifiers; but the exact definitions are 
> addled with regard to content.)
>
> (2) What happens when _Pararhabdodon_ is included?

As Nick is slow to respond...

I'm not sure about Pararhabdodon, but Aralosaurus was recently reidentified 
as a lambeosaurine (Godefroit et al., 2004), so Nick's tree doesn't imply a 
paraphyletic Hadrosaurinae.

Godefroit, P., Alifanov, V., and Bolotsky, Y. (2004). A re-appraisal of 
Aralosaurus tuberiferus (Dinosauria, Hadrosauridae) from the Late Cretaceous 
of Kazakhstan. Bulletin de l`Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de 
Belgique, Sciences de la Terre 74 (Supplement): 139-154.

Mickey Mortimer