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

Re: Ceratosaurus paper

----- Original Message -----
From: Darryl Jones <dinoguy@interlog.com>
To: <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2000 2:47 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?
> 2.  How long ago was the paper actually written?  I didn't see it anywhere
> (often they have an "accepted" date).  The Allosaurus paper reprint
> mentioned that it had been accepted, but this was 1993 and there are
> after this date in the references.
> 3.  Are there more Ceratosaurus papers in the works?  The Bone Cabin
> specimen and the Agate Basin Quarry specimen sound intriguing.
>Yes there is.

     My current slave driving employers, Western Paleontological Labs have a
juvenile ceratosaur that is being discribed  By Dan Chure, Brooks Britt and
heaven alone knows who else. Scott Samson came down from The U of U to see
it a few months back. I don't know when  they're going to publish, but the
skull was reconstructed this week and it's beautiful. There is about 75
percent original material., and a fully reconstructed cast will be presented
at The North American Museum of Ancient Life's  First opening, July 1st.,
2,000. (Shameless Plug.)

Cliff Green
> 4.  How well used is the term "pectoral vertebrae"?  I remember it from
> Wells paper in Dilophosaurus, but have not seen it elsewhere.
> 5.  Does the number of maxillary/dentary teeth have diagnostic value?  I
> thought it didn't, but it is listed as one of the differences.
> To make sure everybody knows where I am coming from, none of these are
> criticisms of the paper, just questions.  The only criticism that I have
> that I would have liked to have seen a reconstruction of the skulls and
> skeletons of the new specimens, especially ones comparing them to C.
> nasicornis.  Maybe it isn't very scientific, but it would have made a good
> picture.
> Darryl Jones  <dinoguy@interlog.com>
>                      <dinoguy@netscape.com>
> For information on tyrannosaurids and
> cool activities and information for kids,
> visit my webpage at:
> http://www.interlog.com/~dinoguy