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

Cionodon kysylkumensis vs Bactrosaurus kysylkumensis

In an email to the list Dr Holtz wrote in 1995 (arn't the lovely those archives)..

Nessov, 1995, ....pp. 47-48, 51-52: _Bactrosaurus kyzylkumensis_ comb. nov.Originally _Cionodon kyzylkumense_ Riabinin, 1931 (emended to _Cionodon kyzylkumensis_ by Weishampel & Horner in _The Dinosauria_) Lectotype: TsNIGR museum #1/3760, a dorsal vertebra from upper Turonian or Coniacian, Dzhira-Khuduk, Uzbekistan, Bissekt Formation (Bissektiyskaya Svita); maxilla, vertebrae, and a tooth are also referable to this species // Ornithopoda, Lambeosauridae (_sic_: called a subfamily in the text)


In my version of The Dinosauria its Cionodon kysylkumensis (Riabinin, 1931), do I have a wrong verion of The Dinosauria?


According to Nessov, 1995 to fossilsite is at Dzhira-Khuduk, Uzbekistan, Bissekt Formation (Bissektiyskaya Svita), however I have two different fossilsites in two diferent countries: Beleutinskaya Svita, Navoiskaya Oblast, , Uzbekistan and  Dabrazinskaya Svita, Sydarninskaya Oblast, Kazakhstan and not the one mentioned by Nessov.

Do all finds named Cionodon kysylkumensis by Riabinin in 1939 thus the Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan fall under B. kysylkumensis or are the Kazakhstan fossils stil fal under Cionodon and is the name of the fossilsite I have from Uzbekistan actualy the same as named by Nessov? Or are the described fossil(s) by Nessov also described by Riabinin in the same paper?

Any help would be welcome.


Fred Bervoets