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

Re: Irritator & Archaeornithoides (was Re: Diagnoses)

> Actually, it IS published: in Charig & Milner's _Baryonyx_ monograph, and in
> Kellner's review of Brazilian dinosaurs in 1996.

You're referering to Kellner's paper resulting from of the Gondwana 
symposium, Mem. Qld. Mus?  I've got that volume; I'll check.

The _Baryonyx_ monograph I don't have.  Do you have a reference?

> I suspect _Archaeornithoides_ will yet prove to be a maniraptoriform of some
> sort, but more than that is uncertain at present.

I was thinking of that paper some years back on a hatchling/embryo 
velociraptorine found in an oviraptorid egg-mound with oviraptorid 
eggs (Norell et al., 1994).  The dentition was very different from that of 
velociraptorines.  Using material from such young specimens to 
establish the affinities of the genera to which they belong must be 
fraught with trouble, I would have thought. 

So, _Archaeornithoides_ is no hatchling tarbosaur then? 

> >(Is it true that the specimen
> >was originally regarded as a coming from an embryo tarbosaur?)
> Yes, but before that it was a lizard.
> Here's the story, from my point of view:
> In a classic paper on baby dinosaurs, Ken Carpenter mentioned references of
> "_Tarbosaurus_ hatchlings (pers. commun. R. Estes)".  Since I was getting
> started on tyrannosaur limb morphometrics at the time, I was really hoping
> to find out details of these hatchlings, in particular their limb measuremnts.
> I contacted Dr. Estes, who sent back to me a few slides of a specimen of a
> skull of a small theropod.  It had been in the collections at Warsaw, filed
> as an undescribed lizard.  Estes had seen it while examining those
> collections (for those on the net who don't know the name, the late, great
> Estes was one of the greats in the field of paleo-lizard studies, and one of
> the first major cladists in American vertebrate paleontology), and
> recognized that it was a dinosaur.
> In the time between talking to Carpenter and writing to me, he was less
> certain that it was a baby tyrannosaur, but he still considered it a theropod.
> I filed the slides away, but since all there was was a skull fragment, it
> wasn't very helpful for plotting on limb morphometrics.  Some years later
> Elzanowski & Wellnhofer published a description of _Archaeornithoides_, and
> I thought it looked very familiar.  I got out my old slides, and there it 
> was...
> Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
> Vertebrate Paleontologist     Webpage: http://www.geol.umd.edu
> Dept. of Geology              Email:th81@umail.umd.edu
> University of Maryland        Phone:301-405-4084
> College Park, MD  20742       Fax:  301-314-9661