[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Egg shapes
RAY D STANFORD wrote:
> Tracy said: [From Original Message: firstname.lastname@example.org
> To: email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org>; email@example.com
> Date: Wednesday, December 02, 1998 4:28 AM
> Subject: Re: Egg shapes]
> >David Krentz wrote:
> >> Subject: Egg shapes 6:02 PM
> >> 12/1/98
> >> Have all eggs that were attributed to Protoceratops and Breviceratops
> now become Oviraptorid?
> >Are there any eggs that could reasonably be ceratopsid?
> >Yes, much to the dismay to some people on the list :->.
> Tracy, even if your opinion is not based totally upon the referenced
It is because he studied the material.
it seems to me that at least a brief QUOTE should have been in
> order, instead of comments about other listers' , "...dismay..." -- along
> with references for the existence of that dismay ;).
> Also, one might wonder -- considering the papers' dates -- about the
> possibility that the author, K. E. Mikhailov, was unaware that the famous
> "protoceratops" egg types are really those of Oviraptors. This seems a
> possibility. The Russian dinosaur exhibit circulating around the country
> inaccurately identifies (at least it did as of when I saw it in New Jersey)
> a nest of such eggs as being those of Protoceratops.
Nope, he did take into account the oviraptor papers, eggs, what ever.
> I haven't accessed the referenced Mikhailov papers, but from the titles
> he seems to be dealing more with egg-shell structure and nest structure,
> instead of eggs with embryo parts. Is it possible that (at least in the
> earlier papers) he was just taking the earlier word of AMNH with the
> (mis)identification of "Protoceratops" eggs and nests?
Nope, he wasn't missidentifiying the eggs. In fact Tony Thulborn from
this very list also wrote a paper about Protoceratops eggs.
Thulborn, R. A. 1992. Nest of the dinosaur Protoceratops. Lethaia, Vol.