[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Sexual Dimorphism (was : Defunct genera and _Pekinosaurus galtoni_)
Rob Gay wrote:
<In ammonites, there is a solid case for sexual
dimorphism and I believe there is a pretty strong case
for it in _Coelophysis_ _bauri_, using neck vs. torso
length, limb ratios and skull lengths. Perhaps this
type of data could be applied to other closely related
theropods (which is actually work that I am in the
process of doing right now). But, unless there is a
significant population sample to draw data from (like
the Ghost Ranch quarry), then speculation on
individual variation is just that, speculation.>
Raath (1990, in the _Dinosaur Systematics_ volume)
has suggested that the *Syntarsus rhodesiensis*
assemblages represent a sexually dimorphic group, as
in *Coelophysis* (Colbert, 1990, same volume). Paul,
1988 (PDW) and subsequently has demonstrated and
described dimorphic populations in *Syntarsus*,
*Coelophysis*, *Tyrannosaurus* (also suggested by
Carpenter, (1990, see above) Larson (1995, 1997) and
others) *Triceratops* (Lehman, Forster, others) and so
on. Robusticity, placement of the first chevron, form
of the ischium, femur, prescence of "sexually related"
crests (Dodson, 1974) in hadrosaurs, and I think
Norman suggested *Iguanodon atherfieldensis* is a
feminine variation of *I. bernissartensis.* So this is
hardly an unexplored field. Smith and Chure have both
been looking at variation in *Allosaurus*, and popular
texts have suggested the cranial crests of some
theropods (*Ornitholestes*, *Oviraptor*,
*Proceratosaurus*) were sexually related. Oh well....
Jaime "James" A. Headden
Dinosaurs are horrible, terrible creatures! Even the
fluffy ones, the snuggle-up-at-night-with ones. You think
they're fun and sweet, but watch out for that stray tail
spike! Down, gaston, down, boy! No, not on top of Momma!
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.