[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
In a message dated 95-08-21 15:43:22 EDT, chartiem@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Chartier
>Dinogeorge claimed earlier that no formal diagnosis existed in the
>literature for _Tyrannosaurus rex_. Have you forgotten Russell's
>1970 monograph? Although outdated, it still provides good diagnoses
>for all North American tyrannosaurids known at that time.
Arghh! Curse me for being a dolt! And I referred to Russell's paper
constantly while writing my tyrannosaurid review, too.
Russell's 1970 diagnosis of _Tyrannosaurus_ remains excellent, though he
seems to have omitted a couple of characters that could then have been
included, such as occipital condyle downwardly deflected and occipital region
strongly widened laterally, particularly at the level of the jugals. Had he
done so, he might well have referred _Albertosaurus lancensis_ to the genus
_Tyrannosaurus_ as having those features in common with it, instead of
keeping it in _Albertosaurus_.
What I MEANT with my earlier outburst was that (1) no one has since applied
Russell's diagnosis or any other to all those new tyrannosaurid skeletons
being discovered out west, and (2) no one has really gone to the trouble of
updating Russell's diagnosis in the light of various more recent discoveries
(Ken Carpenter has published more than anyone else recently on
_Tyrannosaurus_, by the way). Meanwhile, if it's big, if it's Lance/Hell
Creek, then it's _Tyrannosaurus rex_ seems to be the way it's done.
Shamefaced George, enjoying some crow for a change