[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Dilophosaurus

To: dinosaur@usc.edu
Subject: Re: Dilophosaurus
From: Tim Williams <tijawi@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 16:25:09 +1000
Authentication-results: msg-ironport0.usc.edu; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
In-reply-to: <7C67EBEAB8A54083BA52097F2FD87E02@TYRANT>
References: <122449402.529726.1314610933138.JavaMail.root@sz0132a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net> <7C67EBEAB8A54083BA52097F2FD87E02@TYRANT>
Reply-to: tijawi@gmail.com
Sender: owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu

Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. <tholtz@umd.edu> wrote:

>> 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... :-)

As a sidebar to Tom's message, _"Dilophosaurus" sinensis_ has been
regarded as a basal tetanuran most closely related to _Sinosaurus_ and
_Cryolophosaurus_ (Rauhut, 2003).

Rauhut, O.W.M. (2003). The interrelationships and evolution of basal
theropod dinosaurs. Special papers in palaeontology 69. The
Palaeontological Association, pp 215.

Cheers

Tim

References:
- Dilophosaurus
  - From: tyazbeck@comcast.net
- RE: Dilophosaurus
  - From: "Thomas R. Holtz, Jr." <tholtz@umd.edu>

Prev by Date: "Neckin" With Kent Stevens
Next by Date: RE: Dilophosaurus
Previous by thread: Re: Dilophosaurus
Next by thread: Re: Dilophosaurus
Indexes: