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

Re: AMNH exhibit

Patrick Norton wrote:

<Norell and Makovicky did not assign this specimen to
any taxa in their 1997 paper. Maybe someone else did
later, but not them.> 

  As Alessandro said, Norell and Makovicky (1997)
described the specimen, but refused to suggest it was
*Velociraptor* based on poor study of available
postcranial material.

  This paper and the subsequent one (1999) are the
_only_ thourough studies of a Mongolian dromaeosaur
postcrania out there, and only Ostrom (1969) with
subsequent papers (1972, 1973, 1974, 1975) described
other dromaeosaur postcrania. Perle et al., 1999,
described _some_ postcrania, but it is not extensive.
Norell and Makovicky (1999), however, described a new
postcranial skeleton that had a skull that showed the
animal was *Velociraptor* (the first one didn't) and
were able to aptly compare the two skeletons, and
detirmined they were both *Velociraptor*; the cranial
material were described by Barsbold and Osmólska
(1999) in _Acta Pal. Pol._, for which the website was
posted a few days ago, if you want to read the

  Norell et al. have a new dromaeosaur in the works,
though, from Ukhaa Tolgod, and the skull appears in
Webster, 1996: [Webster, D. 1996. Dinosaurs of the
Gobi: unearthing a fossil trove. _National Geographic
Magazine_ 190 (1): 70-89.] The skull differs from
*Velociraptor* in some subtle details, including proportions.

Jaime "James" A. Headden

"Come the path that leads us to our fortune."

Qilong---is temporarily out of service.
Check back soon.

Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.