[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Greg Paul's _Predatory Dinosaurs of the World_ has the only Ovirapto=
species (philoceratops) reconstructed with the large axe-nosed crest and
gives no mention to the hook-nosed crested skull.
In _The Illustrated Encyclop=E6dia of Dinosaurs_, David Norman has bo=
skulls illustrated and both being labelled Oviraptor philoceratops. Besi=
the obvious differences in the shapes of the crests, hook-nose's lower ja=
seems to deflect downwards while axe-nose's deflects downwards, then curv=
up sharply. Hook-nose also seems to have another fenestra in the lower j=
behind the Large, =93heart-shaped=84 one characteristic of Oviraptors whi=
axe-nose does not. Hook-nose's premaxila seems to be broken off also bec=
she looks like an old man who took out his dentures. Hook-nose's brainca=
looks quite a bit larger than axe-nose's and seems to arch up over the up=
temporal fenestrae while axe-nose's skull seems to slope gently downwards=
from the top of the crest to the base of the neck. Hook-nose's Quadrate
looks like a =ABJ=BB, while axe-nose's looks shorter; sort of backwards =
shaped (in left side lateral view).
Noman writes: =ABOviraptor Skulls (Right)
Several skulls belonging to this genus have been described and they exhib=
quite a lot of variety. The top two skulls have been assigned to the spe=
philoceratops, yet one has a small bump in the nasal region [hook-nose],
while the other has a large crest [axe-nose] =85=BB
So, what's the deal? is hook-nose another species, or was it prepare=
wrong? Which skull has priority over philoceratops?