[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Albian-Cenomanian English nodosaurs
In a message dated 1/25/00 3:03:17 AM EST, email@example.com
<< In addition, a couple nomina nuda are mentioned that aren't on George's
(SMC B55463-55490) six dorsals, seven caudals, transverse process, four
metapodials, three phalanges, seven dermal plates
All are ankylosaur except some of the metapodials (Dinosauria indet.) and
some dorsal vertebrae (Ornithopoda indet.).
(SMC B55491-55526) five dorsals, six caudals, three transverse processes,
rib, two chevrons, metatarsal, two phalanges, fragmentary ilium(?), thirteen
dermal plates, two undetermined bones
All are ankylosaur except some dorsal and caudal vertebrae (Ornithopoda
indet.), a limb fragment (turtle) and the chevrons, rib, metatarsal and
phalanges (Dinosauria indet.). >>
Actually, I have this paper (Pereda-Suberbiola & Barrett, 1998), but the
necessary changes and updates to my MM #2 manuscript were so lengthy that I
hadn't had time to add them to it. Consequently they didn't make it into the
European dinosaurs list, either. Will get around to this in the next day or
three. A. hughesii and A. keepingi are museum-label names, but now that
they've appeared in the article, they're published nomina nuda. Good thing I
haven't printed MM #3 yet; would like it to be as complete as possible. By
the way, I just added (thanks to Tracy Ford and Darren Tanke) the species
Deinonychus koreanensis to the Asian dino list, based on the same femur that
is the "type" specimen of Koreanosaurus, in a faunal list and in a photo
caption. Apparently described by Haang Mook Kim, the man who gave us
Ultrasaurus tabriensis, but there is no reference cited. The journal is
Journal of Natural History and Environments Vol 1 #1, June 1993.
Published by the World Society of Natural History and Environments, Pusan
University, Pusan, Korea. It actually has an ISSN number: ISSN 1225-6404. Not
something you'd find in your local library.
Another article in the same journal has an Omeisaurus sinensis, but this is
probably a very bad misprint for Omeisaurus tianfuensis.