[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
2 disagreeable species of *Omeisaurus*
I was looking through Glut's most recent encyclopedia, and a thought
struck me: is it just me, or does the skull assigned to *Omeisaurus*'s
type species *O. junghsiensis* look very little like the skull included
in the holotype of *O. tianfuensis*? For example, going by the figures
(page 637 for *O. junghsiensis*, 639 for *O. tianfuensis*, for those of
you with the book handy) , the lateral temporal fenestra of *O.
junghsiensis* is tall and narrow, while that of *O. tianfuensis* is
shorter and bent like a V with the tip pointing rostrally. Also, the
antorbital fenestra of *O. junghsiensis* is triangular and a whole lot
larger than that of *O. tianfuensis*, which has a very small antorbital
fenestra shaped like a bean. Please don't call me out on the carpet
until you've seen the figures; I know my sample differences don't sound
Also, in the text, something was said about the type species of
*Omeisaurus* being originally named *O. yunghsiensis*, then later
modified to *O. junghsiensis*. Does this mean that we've been calling
the thing by the wrong name for sixty years, or is this a case of
*Ricardoestesia* versus *Richardoestesia*?
Finally, for some reason I paid close attention to the entry on
*Tugulusaurus*. In the diagnosis, it said the length of the femur is 21
centimeters, which puts it in *Coelophysis* range. Then, it went on to
say that the length of the radius is 23 centimeters, which makes it
longer than the femur. Did they mean tibia here, or did this critter
have whopping big arms?
Thanks in advance, from *Thescelosaurus*.
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]