[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
R: Ceratosaurus paper
----- Original Message -----
From: Darryl Jones <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2000 11:47 PM
Subject: Ceratosaurus paper
> I recently received my copy of the new Ceratosaurus paper. It will take
> a long time digest (not being from a palaeontology background). In the
> brief read-through I have given it, I have some questions:
> 1. Why do the authors keep emphasizing size differences between C.
> nasicornis and C. magnicornis? They start out saying that C. magnicornis
> is a larger animal. Why do they emphasize that each bone is larger?
This is not an answer to your question but a sort of INFO:
Perhaps the material assigned to the species C. magnicornis is UUVP 81 that
in the Glut's "Dinosaurs the Encyclopedia" is referred to Ceratosaurus sp.
and for which Glut write that Madsen and Chure as in preparation a paper
will describe this material as pertaining to an apparently new species of
Ceratosaurus that measuring about 8.8m in length?
And within the material assigned to C. nasicornis there is the MWC 0001
specimen? That Glut in his "Dinosaurs the encyclopedia" write that
presumably belonging to Ceratosaurus nasicornis and will be described in a
forthcoming osteology of Ceratosaurus? And BYUVP 4951-4952-8907-9142-9144
consisting of six dorsals vertebrae, BYUVP
4838-4853-4908-5092-8910-8937-8938 consisting of 17 caudals vertebrae, and
BYUVP 5020-5008 consisting of two left third metatarsals, that in the
Britt's 1991 paper are assigned to Ceratosaurus ?nasicornis. ?
What about the other presumed species?
I said that Rowe and Gauthier (1990) argued that C. ingens and C. roechlingi
preserve any diagnostic characters, and should best be regarded as nomina
dubia. What about C. dentisulcatus and C. willisobrienorum?
"Volounteer of Paleontological Museum of Monfalcone"
Via Achille Grandi n°18
38068 ROVERETO (TN) ITALY
Tel:039-0464-434658 Email email@example.com