[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Californian Hadrosaur
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
I don't think it's a Saurolophus at all. The skull just seems wrong to me.
It reallllly needs to be re prepared and prepared better. Its kind of
fragile. J. D. Stewart showed me it a few years ago. I've seen all the
material in the cabinets and that needs to be prepared better.
>>Here here! Maybe there is someone out in orange-land who's aching
do a nice little MS project; LACM appears to have more than its share of
hadrosaur material which could be re-illustrated.<<
Yes, it is a good project and I wish I could do it, but there is no way. I
did talk to LACM about it years ago and they and CIT are interested in
remounting it, but they don't have the funds to do it.