RE: Dilophosaurus

["Thomas R. Holtz, Jr." <tholtz@umd.edu>]

>
> I was wondering, what is up with 'DIlophosaurus sinensis' 
> that obviously is different? Is it be a new genus or what? 

It is not Dilophosaurus. Whether it is a new genus or a very old one remains to 
be published... :-) (There is such a study in the
works).

> And are coelophysids still ceratosaurs or something else? 

Something else: basal to the dilophosaur + (ceratosaur + tetanurine) clade. 
Probably. Although some studies do find a good
old-fashioned Coelophysoide sensu me.

> Because removing them from ceratosauria leaves the ceratosaur 
> appearing out of no where in the Mid jurassic 

It now appears that the coelophysoids of old are a paraphyletic series with 
regards to Averostra (Ceratosauria + Tetanurae). So some
of the old-style "coelophysoids" probably actually contain the ancestors of 
ceratosaurs and tetanurines.

Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Email: tholtz@umd.edu   Phone: 301-405-4084
Office: Centreville 1216                        
Senior Lecturer, Vertebrate Paleontology
Dept. of Geology, University of Maryland
http://www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/
Fax: 301-314-9661               

Faculty Director, Science & Global Change Program, College Park Scholars
http://www.geol.umd.edu/sgc
Fax: 301-314-9843

Mailing Address:        Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
                        Department of Geology
                        Building 237, Room 1117
                        University of Maryland
                        College Park, MD 20742 USA