thank you so much for this. I kept watching all these other videos on different species and the mention of clades and me not knowing them drove me nuts! finally reaching your video
Extremely informative. The evolution of the Ceratosaur lineage could have been included, but overall, it gives a pretty good idea of dinosaur cladistics as it stands now.
That is where many have placed Euhelopodids recently, but many have not. Different researchers have put the group in various places over the last decade. In having to make a decision, I say early in the video which system I am using.
@@xstar9567 Mamenchisaurids are similar to Euhelopodids, being a group of similar sauropods but not having a clear phylogenetic position. Recently they have been placed as a eusauropod but not a neosauropod.
Good easy to follow video. Few things made me raise my eyebrow though. Amongst others you mentioned Ceratosaurids but not Abelisauroids both subgroups within Ceratosauria by Benton the latter being the far larger/more successful one and left out name defining features such as Heterodont. Benton was the way I first learned it in the early 00s. Was Always far too conservative for my taste.
I admit that there are many groups that were not mentioned. This is supposed to be an overview. While Benton's classification has come under criticism over the years, it has held up better than most and is still used by most published palaeontologists (including those I work with).
Possibly. I was using the Benton classification, which has held up in most cases. In 2012 there was a change in what genera were considered in the Euhelopodids. The loss of a few more basal sauropods shifted the group into the macronarians. This group is still a bit in flux, but important to mention.
thank you so much for this. I kept watching all these other videos on different species and the mention of clades and me not knowing them drove me nuts! finally reaching your video
OMG! This is THE most comprehensive video I found about this topic! Thank you!
Your videos are top notch, truly. The best on UA-cam. 👏 👏 👏
Extremely informative. The evolution of the Ceratosaur lineage could have been included, but overall, it gives a pretty good idea of dinosaur cladistics as it stands now.
This is very concise. Very good stuff. Can we get a video about stegosaurus?
Thanks for explaining so well!
Great. This video is very informative. Thankyou
this is fantastic !!! i wish that the spinosaurus tail had been found for you to include tho
Oh no! I watched all of your videos!! Now what do I do? 😳
Euhelopodids are a derived group in Somphospondylia
That is where many have placed Euhelopodids recently, but many have not. Different researchers have put the group in various places over the last decade. In having to make a decision, I say early in the video which system I am using.
@@palaeo_channel Actually, where are Mamenchisaurids?
@@xstar9567 Mamenchisaurids are similar to Euhelopodids, being a group of similar sauropods but not having a clear phylogenetic position. Recently they have been placed as a eusauropod but not a neosauropod.
saved me so much time studying, thank you so much :D
thanks for your explanations
After a few guesses I decided that Dinosauria would most aptly be ranked under infraclass.
Almost every single species of modern bird today is born with at least one tooth
Good easy to follow video.
Few things made me raise my eyebrow though. Amongst others you mentioned Ceratosaurids but not Abelisauroids both subgroups within Ceratosauria by Benton the latter being the far larger/more successful one and left out name defining features such as Heterodont.
Benton was the way I first learned it in the early 00s. Was Always far too conservative for my taste.
I admit that there are many groups that were not mentioned. This is supposed to be an overview.
While Benton's classification has come under criticism over the years, it has held up better than most and is still used by most published palaeontologists (including those I work with).
@@palaeo_channel The only two I know avoid broad classifications in general like the plague. Dinosauria might as well not exist.
🦖🦕🦖
Euhelpids were probably macronarians
Possibly. I was using the Benton classification, which has held up in most cases.
In 2012 there was a change in what genera were considered in the Euhelopodids. The loss of a few more basal sauropods shifted the group into the macronarians. This group is still a bit in flux, but important to mention.
@@palaeo_channel fair
WWWWOOOAAAA!!!!