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


> The same is true of the whales up
> the British Columbia coast.  There is possibly a subspecific distinction
> between these "resident" types and the more violent "transient" pods like
> those mentioned above.

No way Nick. At most these populations are as distinct as different human races.
They are not as distinct as morphologically defined populations which *may*
deserve taxonomic status (e.g. _Orcinus nanus_ and _gladiator_). Morphs
similarly occur throughout other whales (well known in pilots and recently
studied in _Lagenorhynchus_).


Can anyone tell me where _Youxoupliosaurus_ was published? Described 1994 I


I read a recent suggestion that _Edmontonia_ and relatives warrant familial
status, with the name Edmontoniidae being put up. I think Tom Holtz pointed out
that Panoplosauridae would have priority (it's actually used in Piveateau's
'Traites de Paleontologie' of 1954, so has been proposed long ago.. don't have
the info on me). Is there any backing for this suggestion? Does anyone *really*
think it's a good idea? Does anyone have any ideas as to the status of the
Acanthopholidae right now? Help!

You wouldn't _believe_ what Dave Martill has to say on _Angaturama_. I'll reveal
all later today (he says).

"I was lying naked on the beach in the South Seas, and the tide was coming up
over my toes. The sun was beating down - my skin was hot and cool at the same
time. It was wonderful! What was yours?"
"I dreamed that I tore all the skin off my face and was somebody else