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

Re: Dino Illustrations



>In a message dated 95-11-21 04:56:13 EST, 
endocrin@desktop.com.au (Graeme
>Worth) writes:
>
>> In most cases there is no problem, but when the extant 
material is
>>eg isolated teeth and skull fragment (Stygimoloch) and we 
are presented with
>>a full colour illustration of two males head butting for 
control of the
>>herd, do we simply admire the artwork, or do we say "Ah, 
so that's what
>>Stygimoloch looked like!"
>
>Stygimoloch is known from much better material that 
this...! (No postcrania
>yet, unless you think the Triebold specimen is a 
Stygimoloch.)

  That's what I thought when I first saw a skull cast 
photo.. "Pachycephalosaurus? Those spikes look more like 
Stygimoloch!" Sure seems odd that the skull is so similar to 
the AMNH Pachy skull. Of course, not having seen the 
unrestored material for either, I'm not certain how much was 
inferred in the restoration.

-------------------------------------
Name: Michael Edward Purvis
E-mail: us009472@pop3.interramp.com (Michael Edward Purvis)
Date: 06/23/95
Time: 09:40:26

"I really must stop loaning dinosaurs to folks.." :)
-------------------------------------