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

Re: Rinchia

In a message dated 98-01-03 01:00:53 EST, dino@revelation.unomaha.edu writes:

<< 1) What's the current status of Rinchia (please forgive the spelling)?>>

Spelling is unforgiveable: It's _Rinchenia_(!). So far, it's a _nomen nudum_
used as the new generic name for _Oviraptor mongoliensis_ in Rinchen
Barsbold's article in _Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs_: _Rinchenia mongoliensis_.
<< 2) Is it the complete new name for "Oviraptor" mongoliensis?>>

See above.
<< 3) How many specimens are referred to Rinchia?>>

As far as I know, only the holotype of the species _Oviraptor mongoliensis_;
but no such referral has yet been formally made, which is why the name
_Rinchenia_ should still be considered a _nomen nudum_. There may be other
specimens involved that add to the diagnosis and help to differentiate the
genus from _Oviraptor_.
<< 4) What characteristics warranted the new genus name (morphological,
    geographical, chronological, etc.)?>>

Not yet known to me; we're all awaiting the formal publication of the
diagnosis. A look at the figures of the holotype skulls of _O. mongoliensis_
and _O. philoceratops_ shows differences in shape and position of cranial
crest and minor differences between some of the other skull bones. _O._ (or
_Rinchenia_) _mongoliensis_ occurs in the Nemegt, whereas _O. philoceratops_
is earlier, in Djadokhta.
<< 5) Isn't Oviraptor philoceratops and "Oviraptor" mongoliensis, identical
    except for the more pronounced development of the nasal crest in "O."

See above. It's not just a nasal crest in _O. mongoliensis_; the crest extends
far back on the skull.
<< 6) What is the author source, and where is the description to be found?>>

I think the author of the formal description of _Rinchenia_ will be Halszka
Osmolska, perhaps with a co-author. But we must await publication to be
<< 7) Any discussion concerning "O." mongoliensis I should familarize myself
    with? >>

Don't put quotes around _O._, since this is still the "official" name of the
species. The original paper of _O. mongoliensis_, the description in _The
Dinosauria_, and the account in _Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs_ should get you