Jump to content

Talk:Lametasaurus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Classification of Lametasaurus

[edit]

Lametasaurus is considered a ceratosaur (as per Wilson et. al. 2003, Carrano and Sampson 2008, and Novas et. al. 2010) or an ankylosaur (as per Maidment, 2010). However, Carrano and Sampson (2008) do not rule out the possibility that the dermal scutes of Lametasaurus, while similar to the osteoderms of titanosaurs, may also represent ceratosaur dermal ossifications, but whether these scutes are titanosaurian or ceratosaurian requires a histological examination (if the holotype is ever relocated). In summary, the majority of authors cited above are leaning towards the consensus that Lametasaurus is an abelisaurid.

Why isn't this information in the article? Also, everywhere I have seen has said that Lametasaurus is a ceratosaur.Zurbs58 (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson, J.A., Sereno, P.C., Srivastava, S., Bhatt, D.K., Khosla, A. and Sahni, A. (2003). "A new abelisaurid (Dinosauria, Theropoda) from the Lameta Formation (Cretaceous, Maastrichtian) of India." (PDF) Contributions from the Museum of Paleontology [University of Michigan], 31(1): 1-42.

Carrano & Sampson, 2008. The phylogeny of Ceratosauria (Dinosauria: Theropoda). Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 6, 183-236.

Maidment, S. C. R. (2010) Stegosauria: a historical review of the body fossil record and phylogenetic relationships Swiss Journal of Geosciences 103: 199-210

Novas, Fernando E., Chatterjee, Sankar, Rudra, Dhiraj K., Datta, P.M. (2010). "Rahiolisaurus gujaratensis, n. gen. n. sp., A New Abelisaurid Theropod from the Late Cretaceous of India" in: Saswati Bandyopadhyay (ed.): New Aspects of Mesozoic Biodiversity. Springer Berlin / Heidelberg. pp. 45–62.68.4.61.237 (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]

Yes, but aren't you forgetting Walker designated the scutes as the lectotype? Only if it could be proven that the scutes belong to the hindlimb material — and this seems impossible to prove — opinions about the postcranial skeleton become relevant to the taxonomic status of Lametasaurus.--MWAK (talk) 06:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]