[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
George Olshevsky wrote (quoting me):
<< PB: Are you sure? It is quite clear then, that if the pubes are
to those in ornithischians, then Therizinosaurs are ornithischains, and not
only that, ornithischains more derived than _Pisanosaurus_ which has a
*propubic* pelvis. Is that what you're saying George? If it isn't, then the
retroverted pubes are just as likely to be derived for theropod pubes
convergent to ornithischians.>>
REPLY: The pelvis of _Pisanosaurus_ is known only from a matrix impression,
so we have little idea what it was really like. But what looks like an
impresion of a propubic pelvis is much more likely to be that of a pelvis in
which there is a fairly well developed prepubic process. This is how
Bonaparte interpreted it in his original description. Everything else known
about _Pisanosaurus_ suggests this.>>
I find this extremely unlikely. Even though it is simply a matrix
impresison, it clearly shows the pubis going straight away from the
acetabulum at about 20 degrees forward of the verticle axis of the pelvis.
_Pisanosaurus_ was propubic as much as _Allosaurus_ or _Plateosaurus_ are --
unless of course the pubic shaft took an increadible U-turn somewhere
mid-shaft where we can't see it....
Check out Figure 14-A on page 191 of:
Sereno, P C. 1991. _Lesothosaurus_, "fabrosaurids," and the early evolution
of the Ornithischia. JVP 11(2):168-197.
There is no indication of any retroverted pubic shaft or a prepubic process,
just a normal propubic pelvis.
"Am I not getting through to him!?"