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

Re: Removing segnosaurs from ...



<<Incidentally, the more I look at the mandible of _Erlikosaurus_, the 
more convinced I become that had it been discovered in Triassic 
deposits, it would without hesitation have been referred to 
Prosauropoda.>>

Right on the money here.  Look in "The Dinosauria" at figures 18-1 E,
18-2 B, and 15-2 E; which depict the inner jaws of _Erlikosaurus_, 
_Segnosaurus_, and _Plateosaurus_ respectively.  The prearticular is 
very similar in _E._ and _P._, as is the general structure of the inner 
jaw bones in all three forms.

I did goof when I listed trait number 19 as interdental plates; it should 
be interdental plates that are small compaired to the tooth size.

About the foot.  Segnosaur feet are just about identicle to 
prosauropod feet.  Thom Holtz claims this is a reversion.  This cannot 
be a reversion because to revert to a former condition, you MUST 
have that condition in your ancestory; and unless Thom Holtz is 
claiming that Prosauropods are ancestors of Theropods, theropods 
never had a prosauropod foot in their ancestory, so the segnosaurs' 
foot is not a reversion.

Peter Buchholz
Stang1996@aol.com

-Boycot Taco Bell's "Texas Tacos" and "Border Light" menu items.
-Suport the abolition of the $1.00 bill in the United States in favor of a 
 $2.00 bill and $1.00 coin.