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

Re: MARGINOCEPHALIANS and Triassic times



Both domes look exactly like pachycephalosaur
domes and unlike anything else ever found, so
it is reasonable to conclude that that is what they are.
By the same reasoning, Protoavis has features that
are present only in birds (and there is a fair amount of it)
and Shuvosaurus' skull looks exactly like an ornithomimid
and not a Poposaurid. Chatterjee is actually pretty bright
and not someone who is simply looking for fame and fortune.
Not being an expert but having a good deal of knowledge and
experience in paleo, I was skeptical about all of the above but
can find no reason to discount any of it, with the exception of the old
Feduccia
reasoning, "it's too late (or early in these cases)," or political reasons.
The stuff is real.


Jonathan Weinbaum

Paleontology
Museum of Texas Tech


----- Original Message -----
From: <Dinogeorge@aol.com>
To: <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2000 2:18 AM
Subject: Re: MARGINOCEPHALIANS and Triassic times


> In a message dated 4/20/00 2:01:31 AM EST, dinogami@hotmail.com writes:
>
> << Unless something appeared under my radar, I think the only reference to
>  this was a talk Chatterjee gave at the Chicago SVP meeting, in which one
of
>  his slides listed the fauna from the Late Triassic of India; at the
bottom
>  of the slide was a mention of new pachycephalosaur material (I don't
recall
>  it specifically stating "domes"), and there was a murmur of "Huh?"
through
>  the audience.  ;-D  Hey, Triassic birds, why not Triassic
pachycephalosaurs?
>    I guess all those people out there looking in Middle Triassic sediments
>  are just missing all the true _dinosaur_ fossils...  >>
>
> I've seen one of the domes, and so has Mark Goodwin. His comment was that
if
> it had been found in Late Cretaceous deposits, he would unhesitatingly
refer
> it to Pachycephalosauria.