[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Dinosaur Genera List corrections #98
Bakker had a cast of the skull and the left lower jaw with him at
DinoFest 1998. I was there when he first showed the skull to Jack McIntosh
and Dong Zhiming. (In fact, I was holding the jaw for him while he was
showing the braincase to Jack).
Jack McIntosh's INITIAL view was that the braincase was _significantly_
different than _Apatosaurus_. Bakker's initial idea was to resurrect
_Brontosaurus_ based on this reconstructed skull (due to be so much
different than _Apatosaurus_).
One cautionary note, the skull was reconstructed using a wax casting of
the original, which was then stretched to what was considered the proper
From: Stanley Friesen <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Thursday, November 05, 1998 10:39 AM
Subject: Re: Dinosaur Genera List corrections #98
>At 12:39 PM 11/4/98 -0500, TWILLIAMS@canr1.cag.uconn.edu wrote:
>>For those who are interested: judging from Bakker's paper, the
>>splitting of _Apatosaurus_ and _Brontosaurus_ is based upon
>>features (or one feature) of the braincase: position of the
>Eh, sounds rather weak to me. It is not even clear to me that this would
>not show considerable individual variation.
>I always try to keep in mind that Bakker is an extreme splitter as far as
>genera are concerned. I find it pays to be somewhat cautious about
>accepting Bakker's genera.
>What I would really like to have more info. on is his reasons for
>splitting out Eobrontosaurus, so I can evaluate that genus better.
>May the peace of God be with you. email@example.com