[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Dryptosaurus, Deltadromeus, and Bahariasaurus
At 12:35 PM 12/15/97 -0600, Seth wrote:
>Based on what was found of Deltadromeus, I kind of figured that. What was
>the skull based on? Best guess with some inference from Dryptosaurus
No, just imagination (there is very little known of the skull of Drypto,
either!). If they had kept it a generic-looking tetanurine, that wouldn't
be glad. However, they stick on this three-pronged lacrimal, which I
strongly suspect is going to show up in published art in the next few
>>There do not seem to be any characters especially linking Deltadromeus or
>>Dryptosaurus and either the Spinosauridae or the Coelophysidae. The
>>spinosaurid-coelophysid link is weaker than once thought, now that the
>>anatomy of the former is better known (and is pretty clearly tetanurine).
>How is the anatomy of Spinosauridae better known? They didn't find more of
>Spinosaurus did they? I assume you mean with the recent study of Baryonyx?
Well, the HAVE found new Spinosaurus material, including a skull. However,
the published material concerns Baryonyx and the Brazilian forms.
Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Vertebrate Paleontologist Webpage: http://www.geol.umd.edu
Dept. of Geology Email:email@example.com
University of Maryland Phone:301-405-4084
College Park, MD 20742 Fax: 301-314-9661