[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of
Jonathan R. Wagner
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 6:06 PM
To: email@example.com; David.Krentz@disney.com; Dinogeorge@aol.com
Subject: Re: Kritosaurus?
They are almost certainly different species, although they seem to
approach each other morphologically. A specimen from the Bearpaw Shale is
probably notabilis, but has a very prominant, navajovius-like hump, so much
so that Horner has referred it to the latter species. I hope to see it soon.
If you regard them as congeners, this isn't really a problem... hard
to distinguish someone from themselves, no?
>Anasazisaurus, and Naashoibitosaurus.
... are without a single doubt specimens of K. navajovius, see
Not if you talk to Spencer Lucas.
>Barring complications, use the name Gryposaurus for the
>familiar big-nosed hadrosaur species of the northwestern US, and
>Anasazisaurus or Naashoibitosaurus for the big-nosed hadrosaur species of
Sez you. Personally, I don't care if you decide the San Juan species
is different enough to warrant a separate genus (although that would be an
almost unbelievably fine hair to split), but let's not try to complicate the
situation further... there is NO evidence for more than one hadrosaurine
species in the (non-Naashoibito Member) Kirtland Shale. And
"Naashoibitosaurus" is not from the Naashoibito Member (see recent Willams
papers). Barring complications, let's eshew obfuscation and call it
Kritosaurus navajovius, a very old and well-established name with a long
history and much coverage in the literature. Leave your rulebooks at home
kids, come play science!
Again, not if you talk to Spencer Lucas.