[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Carnosauria (specifically _Epanterias_)
In a message dated 96-06-07 19:59:10 EDT, email@example.com (Stan
>From: Thomas_R_HOLTZ@umail.umd.edu (th81)
> > The type species of Epanterias is E. amplexus, which may predate
> > Creosaurus atrox (I'll have to check). However, the type of
> > Epanterias was mixed Camarasaurus and allosaurid material, so it is
> > not at all certain which one should be the name holder.
>The first reviser principle applies here.
>Has this fact been published in a refereed journal?
>Did the article (if it exists) say which portion was to retain
The type material was explicitly named, redescribed, and ilustrated by Osborn
& Mook 1921, "_Camarasaurus_, _Amphicoelias_, and other sauropods of Cope:
Iconographic description of the types and other material of the Sauropoda in
the Cope Collection of Fossil Reptiles from Canyon City, Colorado, in the
American Museum of Natural History," _Memoirs of the American Museum of
Natural History_, New Series Volume III, Part III: 245 - 387 + plates
LX-LXXXV [January 1921].
The type specimen is AMNH 5767, an incomplete dorsal vertebra, which Osborn
and Mook explicitly denote as the "type," as well as an unillustrated dorsal
centrum (evidently a syntype, since it falls under their description of
"type"); associated with these are an axis, a cervical centrum, a nice
coracoid, and a fragmentary metatarsal. All are grouped under the same
specimen number and are probably from the same individual. None of these
bones could possibly be confused with those of a camarasaurid.
You may compare the illustrations with those of Madsen (1976) and I think
you'll agree that they're indistinguishable from the corresponding bones of
_Allosaurus fragilis_. The only difference is size: _Epanterias amplexus_ is
about 15% larger than a typical _Allosaurus fragilis_.
Bakker referred more material to _Epanterias_ in the _Hunteria_ paper on
_Drinker_, _Foxraptor_, _Uluops_, etc., but he, too, separates the genus from
_Allosaurus_ by size alone.