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

Re: Californian Hadrosaur

Tracy Ford (hi Tracy!) wrote:
>This is wrong, it is from the LACM and is the skull of the
>Californian (Moreno Formation, Fresno County, California) hadrosaur that
>Bill Morris figured in the 80's.
>Genus: Nova
        I haven't (yet) examined this specimen, but from the pictures
provided by Morris (IMHO one of the great unsung heros of hadrosaur
paleontology) show an animal which does not appear differentiable from
(roughly contemporaneous) Saurolophus osborni. If only on these grounds, I'd
say it is best to consider this specimen as cf. Saurolophus osborni until
such time as a complete description of the skull can be presented. Certainly
those of us who, if we were inclined to accept Linnaean binomial
nomenclature, would advocate rampant lumping within Ornithischia would
minimally refer this specimen to Saurolophus (=Prosaurolophus) with confidence.

>Its nice to see the skull (which needs work), but it would have been nicer
>if it was written up right.
        Here here! Maybe there is someone out in orange-land who's aching to
do a nice little MS project; LACM appears to have more than its share of
hadrosaur material which could be re-illustrated.

     Jonathan R. Wagner, Dept. of Geosciences, TTU, Lubbock, TX 79409-1053
  "Why do I sense we've picked up another pathetic lifeform?" - Obi-Wan Kenobi