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

Re: segnosaurs



On Wed, 28 Feb 1996, Tim Williams wrote:

> I'm not surprised - the idea still sounds a bit loopy.  I didn't 
> think there were too many trees in the Gobi Desert, even back in the 
> Cretaceous.  And any tree capable of supporting a fully-grown 
> _Deinocheirus_ or _Therizinosaurus_ must have been HUGE!!  But maybe 
> Nessov is onto something when he suggests that the earlier 
> segnosaurians were insectivores.  (Didn't someone else once suggest 
> that _Therizinosaurus_ used its huge arms and claws for ripping open 
> giant termite nests?).  I'd love to see Nessov's work.

        I find it hard to imagine dinosaurs as large as the segnosaurs 
existing on insects. Unless of course they were as big as Meganeura was!
Most insectivrous creatures today are small, with the exceptions of the 
aardvark, and the giant anteater.

        [bit deleted]

> What about the phylogeny of the Segnosauria?  Have the segnosaurians, 
> like the tyrannosaurians, now been classified in the Coelurosauria?
> 
> Tim Williams

        I find the notion of the Coelurosauria a bit dated nowadays, 
since reading Paul's PDW.  personally think they were a group somewhere 
near the ancestral ornitho/sauris split. Mos people that think of the 
predatory dinosaurs as big carnosaurs, or small coelurosaurs tend to 
overlook creatures like Nanotyrannus, and creatures like Dilophosaurus 
(more akin to Coelophysis).