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

Alxasaurus and segnosaurs



There have been some postings over the past few months strongly suggesting
that the published description of Alxasaurus is at deviance from the actual
type specimen. On the surface this seems rather strange - what would be the
point of describing it incorrectly when the specimen is available for
comparison? If it was a mistake, why has it not been corrected? Have those
who claim that an error has been made contacted the authors? To have this
sort of discussion still circulating seems not only odd, but unnecessary, in
that it would not appear to be all that difficult to arrive at a conclusion
one way or the other!
Leaving all that aside, here are some hypothetical questions. If we had
never heard of Alxasaurus, where would the segnosaurs be classified? Would
Therizinosaurus still be included with the segnosaurs? And, finally, if the
claimed errors in the Alxasaurus description are in fact errors, is that
likely to mean that Alxasaurus is not a segnosaur, or that it is but the
classification needs to be reviewed?
Boy, what a mess!
Please, can someone clear this up once and for all?
Graeme Worth.