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

Re: ARCTOMET FIGURE PROBLEMS



In a message dated 97-07-10 10:04:32 EDT, dwn194@soton.ac.uk (Darren Naish)
writes:

<< It concerns what is supposed to be the pes of _Dromiceiomimus
brevitertius_
 (Fig. 8.3 E and F) on p. 231. The metatarsi are not arctometatarsalian in
the
 figure, there is a digit I, and the entire structure is more robust than
would
 be expected for an ornithomimid (even _Harpymimus_ is markedly more gracile
and
 other taxa, e.g. _Ornithomimus velox_, are even more so). So the figure is
 almost certainly not of a derived ornithomimid as it is supposed to be (my
best
 guess is that it is actually from an oviraptorosaur).  >>

These figures are correctly labeled _Garudimimus brevipes_ in the second
edition; only the skull on that page is _Dromiceiomimus brevitertius_. I
can't check my first edition, however, because it's still back in Buffalo
with the rest of my paleo library. Whether the figure correctly represents
the pes of _G. brevipes_ is another story. I understand there are problems
with the original restoration.