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

RE: 1st Inland sea incursion



 

> is certainly adequate in size and shape
>as
>to justify reasonable consideration that it MIGHT have been produced by
>Acrocanthosaurus (especially in view of the Acrocanthosaurus teeth
>discussed
>by Lipka).  This seems not unreasonable IN THE ABSENCE OF either
>skeletal or
>dental elements that suggest any other EQUALLY LARGE theropod lived in
>Maryland at the time.

A cautionary note here, there is indeed evidence of a large theropod in the
Arundel that is not Acrocanthosaurus. Harris (in the same volume as Lipka's
paper)discusses the proximal caudal that was named Creosaurus potens by
Lull. Though the specimen is woefully inadequate to diagnose what type of
theropod it was, but it is enough to say that it isn't Acrocanthosaurus.

cheers

Adam Yates