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

Re: 2 disagreeable species of *Omeisaurus*



In a message dated 12/20/98 10:09:55 PM EST, thescelosaurus@juno.com writes:

<< 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*?...etc., etc. >>

Most sauropod workers will agree that all the Chinese sauropod taxa need
sophisticated restudy. I doubt whether half the named species are valid, and
referrals to genera seem to be whimsical rather than based on clean character
analysis. There's also lots of plaster clogging up the specimens, and many
mounted skeletons on tour and on display may include elements from several
genera, some, like skulls, even plastered up out of whole cloth. Sad
situation.