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

Re: Kritosaurus?

Jon Wagner wrote:

<<...and call it Kritosaurus navajovius, a very old
and well-established name with a long history and much
 coverage in the literature.>

and Dinogeorge wrote:

<Go argue the point with Spencer Lucas; he'll give you
something to chew on. He's one of the authors of the
Anasazisaurus/Naashoibitosaurus paper, and it is
essentially their argument that I presented.>

  Based largely on variation of the nasal bones
relative to the rest of the skull, in both taxa. But
as I recall similar arguments (variation in shape and
form of the frontals and nasals) were made for
*Corythosaurus* and *Lambeosaurus,* resulting in an
enormity of specific (and in a few cases, generic)
identities for specimens. *N. ostromI* does appear to
have a narrow occiput in dorsal aspect, with
squamosals flaring laterally, and *A. horneri* with
_very_ large supraorbital fenestrae, but quantifying
these (and I suspect a few others) would be a task for
disproving Hunt and Lucas' hypothesis of multiple
gryposaur genera.

Jaime "James" A. Headden

  Dinosaurs are horrible, terrible creatures! Even the
  fluffy ones, the snuggle-up-at-night-with ones. You think
  they're fun and sweet, but watch out for that stray tail
  spike! Down, gaston, down, boy! No, not on top of Momma!

Do You Yahoo!?
Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.