[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
At 02:11 AM 1/3/98 EST, Dinogeorge wrote:
>In a message dated 98-01-03 01:00:53 EST,
><< 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.
Given the significance of such crests in specific recognition, I would
generally not give such differences more than specific significance. Such
crests will tend to differ substantially, and more or less randomly,
between closely related species.
><< 5) Isn't Oviraptor philoceratops and "Oviraptor" mongoliensis,
><< identical except for the more pronounced development of the
><< nasal crest in "O." mongoliensis?>>
>See above. It's not just a nasal crest in _O. mongoliensis_; the
>crest extends far back on the skull.
I am not sure would give this much weight. Unless a rather different
ontogeny is indicated, I would tend to treat this as just a
species-specific variant of the same structure.
In short, unless more differences are described, I will probably treat
_Rinchenia_ as a junior synonym of _Oviraptor_ when it *is* published.
May the peace of God be with you. email@example.com