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

Re: Biggest predators

Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. wrote:
> Nick Pharris wrote:
> >
> >Phil Currie thinks G and C are abelisaurs, but I wholeheartedly disagree.

Not I. I've expressed my opinion to Phil and he agreed, but as Tom as
> Stay tuned...
> _Deinocheirus_ is not much like these at all.  It's claws have a very low
> angle of curvature, they are VERY broad in cross-section, they do not show
> the typical theropod (indeed, basal dinosaurian) deflection of manual digit
> I.  Instead, they have the same  metacarpal proportions and shapes as
> ornithomimosaurs. 

And IMHO the arms and scapula are like Segnosaurs/Therizinosaurs. What
needs to be looked at are the ribs. Phil told me he'd look at them the
next time hes at the museum that there in, but he hasn't gone back to
that museum yet.

> Whatever _Deinocheirus_ was doing, it was doing it much more like an
> ornithomimosaur than like allosaurs or dromaeosaurs.  Feeding on "small"
> animals (relatively speaking: a protoceratopsian would be a small animal to
> _Deinocheirus_) or on plants (hook-and-clamping branches) fit the forelimbs
> much better than a super-dromaeosaur model.

This brings up a question, with the diversity of theropods, both in
material and genera, could we now be able to tell if there were mimic
families (for lack of a better term)? For example, Elaphrosaurus. Long
thought to be an early ornithomimid, but now showing it more closely
related to abeliosaurids, an Ornithomimimid mimid? Or if Taquet and
Russell on Pelicanimimus being a spinosaurid? What about Megaraptor? A
dromaeosaurid mimid?

> Raymond Thaddeus C. Ancog wrote (of "_Bruhathkayosaurus_"):
> >Wait a minute! Titanosaurs - sauropods. How could a sauropod be mistaken
> >for a theropod? (How complete is the skeleton of "Bruhathkayosaurus"
> >anyway? And what's the etymology?
> Not to put too fine a point on it, one of the single least useful dinosaur
> publications of all times is the description of _Bruhathkayosaurus_.  The
> specimen is poorly illustrated, the line drawing is less than useful, and no
> real characters are shown to judge one way or another (i.e., to see if the
> long bones are really bones and not petrified wood!).  An ilium, tibia,
> femur, and caudal verts are listed in the description.  The name
> "bruhatkaya" is Sanskrit for "huge body".
Sankar Chatterjee has told George and I that Bruhathkayosaurus is a
titanosaur (he did look at the material). Then that'd be a huge