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


Christian Kammerer wrote
>Unlike things such as ceratopsians and hadrosaurs, many
>of the genera are not distinguished by really clear features in the skulls
        Sorry, a bit of ironic, quasi-hysterical laughter. Yeah, there do
seem to be a lot of features of the skulls of hadrosaurs that might be
taxonomically useful... IF THEY WERE EVER DESCRIBED. Anybody ever checked
out Lambe's original description of _Gryposaurus (=Kritosaurus) notabilis_?
He doesn't even describe the maxilla! Hadrosaur skulls are prone to being
poorly described, incompletely prepared and unsatisfactorally documented in
general. Suuuuure, you think they're all peachy keen easy to deal with
because they have those distinct rostra. Well, lemme tell you folks out
there, it's really hard to deal with a hadrosaur when you don't have the
rostrum. A lot of effort has been put into describing the nasal
extravagences of hadrosaurs, but so much less attention has been lavished on
their equally fantastic entire-rest-of-the-skeleton. Now, if you happen to
live in Tyrell-land, with dozens of specimens to play with that's one thing.
However, for those of us pukes down in Texas, well, we are forced to chortle
at such generalizations.
        Now, I suppose gorgonopSians do have hadrosaurs beat, but we all
have our crosses to bear. Mine is an unsurprisingly rostrum-poor cross.

     Jonathan R. Wagner, Dept. of Geosciences, TTU, Lubbock, TX 79409-1053
 "Only those whose life is short can truly believe that love is forever"-Lorien