[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Sauropods Size
At 04:31 PM 4/14/99 -0500, Tim Williams wrote:
>As I understand it, most of the knowledge of this genus comes from
>_A. altus_, not _A. fragillimus_, and I don't know to which species
>Wilson and Smith refer the new material. I have seen _A. altus_
>listed as a junior synonym of _A. fragillimus_. Does anybody know
>why _A. altus_ is referred to the genus _Amphicoelias_?
Because it is the type species... _Amphicoelias altus_ Cope 1877, _A.
fragillimus_ Cope 1878.
Osborn & Mook (in their 1921 review of sauropods) and McIntosh (see below)
doubt that there was sufficient cause to erect a new species for the giant
specimen, and consider it provisionally referrable to _A. altus_.
McIntosh's most recent published review of _Amphicoelias_ is in:
McIntosh, J.M. 1998. New information about the Cope Collection of
sauropods from Garden Park, Colorado. Modern Geology 23:481-506.
He discusses (among many other things) the loss of the _A. fragillimus_ type
(for which the number AMNH 5777 was reserved, although no record shows it
ever arrived at New York). He also says:
"Although loss of the fossil [is] a major tragedy, there is no reason not to
consider it a very large individual of _Amphicoelias altus_." (p. 502)
Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Vertebrate Paleontologist Webpage: http://www.geol.umd.edu
Dept. of Geology Email:email@example.com
University of Maryland Phone:301-405-4084
College Park, MD 20742 Fax: 301-314-9661