[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Right you are. You'd think I'd read my own *^%*^%#@ notes before spouting off
at the mouth. But no...
On Wednesday, November 03, 1999 2:52 PM, Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
> > From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of
> > Toby White
> > At 110My, wouldn't this be the wrong age (early Albian) for a
> > Titanosaur in N.
> > America? Yet its too recent to be a Brachiosaur. Very odd.
> It is most assuredly not too recent for a brachiosaur, as at least SOME of
> the _Astrodon_/_Pleurocoelus_ material (contemporaneous with
> "Sauroposeidon") seems to be brachiosaurid. Furthermore, there is now
> evidence of titanosaurs in North America by the mid-Cretaceous.
> Of course, there is the whole question now of what other than _Brachiosaurus
> altithorax_ and _B. (sometimes _Giraffatitan_) brancai_ IS a brachiosaurid.
> It may be that "Brachiosauridae" in the old more inclusive sense includes a
> paraphyletic grade of titanosaur outgroups.
> Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
> Vertebrate Paleontologist
> Department of Geology Director, Earth, Life & Time Program
> University of Maryland College Park Scholars
> College Park, MD 20742
> Phone: 301-405-4084 Email: email@example.com
> Fax (Geol): 301-314-9661 Fax (CPS-ELT): 301-405-0796