[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Ceratosaurus paper
----- Original Message -----
From: Darryl Jones <firstname.lastname@example.org>
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.)
> 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
> Darryl Jones <email@example.com>
> For information on tyrannosaurids and
> cool activities and information for kids,
> visit my webpage at: