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

Re: Anyone know what formations these are from?



a0000265@unet.univie.ac.at wrote-


> Sorry, I can't help you, I can only criticise:

Thanks for the message, but I have some counter-criticism ;-)

> "Likhoelesaurus" is a
> rauisuchian (respectively one's teeth),

Probably, but they have yet to be described (and I have yet to hear
testimony from someone who's actually seen them).

> "huene" and "hueni" should both be
> "huenei",

Should be, but aren't.  I don't think George has had a chance to change this
name to it's correct form, or else the same rules don't apply to nomina
nuda, since they haven't been formally named and their names are due to
change before description anyway.  Somebody should really find out what this
is based on so that it can be described though.....

> "Chienkosaurus" is the name for 4 teeth, 3 of which are from a
> crocodile, 1 from Szechuanosaurus,

As Szechuanosaurus is based on isolated teeth that have never been compared
to the contemporary Yangchuanosaurus shangyouensis or Sinraptor hepingensis
(if tooth differences even exist between these species) and whose referred
postcrania lack teeth (the teeth associated with Dong's 1983 skeleton are
shed from scavengers), I do not think it possible to refer the theropod
tooth included in the Chienkosaurus holotype to Szechuanosaurus.  After a
bit of study, the teeth of all three species are roughly similar in
morphology (recurved, flattened, both edges serrated), both Y. shangyouensis
and S. hepingensis have 24 denticles per cm, while S. campi has 29 per cm.
These are very similar, especially considering interdental variation, and
further study must be done before we can refer isolated teeth to either
species.

> "Arkansaurus" is probably Archaeornithomimus,

Archaeornithomimus is of course originally based on many elements from the
Iren Debasu Formation of China, which may represent more than one species
(that may be Garudimimus), so further study must be done on the original
species anyways.  Some fragmentary remains from the Arundel (Potomac)
Formation of Maryland were described as Ornithomimus affinis and referred to
Archaeornithomimus later based on sharing curved pedal unguals with the
Chinese species.  The Chinese species actually has straight pedal unguals
however, the curved ones coming from the tyrannosaurid Alectrosaurus.  So
the two species need not be in the same genus and Archaeornithomimus is no
longer known from North America.  Skipping over a lot of related, but
uneccessary points (what is Ornithomimus? affinis?, what about
Archaeornithomimus? bissektensis?, etc.), "Arkansaurus" and
Archaeornithomimus do differ in a few ways, the most important to argue
against them being in the same genus being the fact that Archaeornithomimus
is arctometatarsalian and "Arkansaurus" is not.  "Arkansaurus" is actually
much more similar to Nedcolbertia, so is possibly a basal coelurosaur,
though this is mainly based on symplesiomorphies.  Whatever
Archaeornithomimus and "Arkansaurus" really are however, they aren't
congeneric.

> and "quiao" contains a bit
> much vowels for a Chinese syllable, I'm sure it's "qiao", q being an odd
> sound, not a k or something similar.

Correct!  Thanks, I misspelled it.

> I've never heard of Suchosaurus, Yangchuanosaurus "longqiaoensis",
> "Huaxiasaurus" and "Grusimimus". What are these?

Suchosaurus is a crocodilian genus that may actually be a spinosaurid (I
THINK it's from the Wealden Formation of England, that's why I'm asking).
It's known from teeth described by Owen in 1841.  A species name would also
be helpful :).
Yangchuanosaurus "longqiaoensis" Li, Zhang and Cai 1999, is presumedly a
sinraptorid carnosaur known from the Jurassic of Sichuan, China.
"Huaxiasaurus" is presumedly a bird-like dinosaur from the Barremian Yixian
Formation of Liaoning, China.  It has been mentioned in two news articles
this year.
"Grusimimus" is a basal tetradactyl ornithomimosaur known from forelimbs,
pelvis and hindlimbs found in the Early Cretaceous of Mongolia.  Barsbold
announced it in a 1996 press conference with Gallimimus "mongoliensis" and
said it was closely related to Harpymimus.

references-

Li Kui, Zhang Yuguang and Cai Kaiji, 1999. The Characteristics of the
Composition of the Trace Elements in Jurassic Dinosaur Bones and Red Beds in
Sichuan Basin, Geological Publishing House, Beijing: pp. not yet available
[in Chinese with English summary]. ISBN 7-116-02875-7.

For Huaxiasaurus-
http://www.cmnh.org/fun/dinosaur-archive/2000Aug/msg00337.html
http://www.cmnh.org/fun/dinosaur-archive/2000May/msg00008.html

For Grusimimus-
http://www.cmnh.org/fun/dinosaur-archive/1996Nov/0051.html

Mickey Mortimer