[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Tyrannosaur species
From: Dinogeorge@aol.com <Dinogeorge@aol.com>
To: firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com>; firstname.lastname@example.org
Cc: email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 10. april 1999 0:44
Subject: Re: Tyrannosaur species
>In a message dated 4/9/99 4:03:57 PM EST, email@example.com writes:
>There's also a lot of plaster in the skull that needs to be dealt with, or
How much plaster are we talking about here? How much of N. lancensis skull
is a guesswork? If it has been restored properly, at the first glance its
shape is quite different than in T.rex.
Nevertheless,  I think the tooth count is wrong for T. rex (N.
>lancensis has too many teeth and so might be a different species of
>Tyrannosaurus), and  those dramatic skull growth changes better not be
>>too< dramatic, lest we mistake real phyletic differences for ontogenetic
>changes (how many growth specimens of T. rex, with skulls, do we have,
>anyway?). Should be an interesting study either way.
I think this also raises the question which (one or ones?) of the restored
T. rex skulls is the closest to the real thing?
Statistics is very a very unreliable tool when applied on a very small
Eternal paleontological questions:Variation of the species? Various growth
stage? Different gender or a different species (genus or even a family)?
Berislav Krzic (Kr?ic)
DINOSAUR ILLUSTRATED MAGAZINE : UPDATED!
BERI'S DINOSAUR WORLD