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

Re: WYLEYIA A DROMAEOSAUR? [and a word on Yaverlandia]

Jerry Harris wrote-

>    Can someone give a citation for this paper?  It's not ringing a bell
> me...

It's an abstract in the VII International Symposium on Mesozoic Terrestrial
Ecosystems, available for download at
http://www.paleonet.com.ar/paleonet1/abstracts/abstracts.html .
The actual abstract is:


Fernando Novas1 & Saswati Bandyopadhyay2

1  Laboratory of Comparative Anatomy, Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales,
Av. Angel Gallardo 470, Buenos Aires (1405), Argentina. E-mail:
2  Geological Studies Unit, Indian Statistical Institute, 203 Barrackpore
Trunk Road, Calcutta 700 035, INDIA. E-mail: saswati@isical.ac.in

The Late Cretaceous (Maastrichtian) Lameta Formation of central India has
yielded relatively abundant, diverse, and anatomically significant remains
of predatory dinosaurs. The materials were studied by Frederich von Huene in
1933, who recognised nine theropod species from a fossiliferous quarry at
Bara Simla Hill (Madhya Pradesh). However, the taxonomic validity and
phylogenetic relationships of these taxa remained highly debated since then.
Fortunately, the increasing knowledge of theropods from other Gondwanan
localities in Patagonia and Madagascar contributes to understand better the
Indian forms. Our studies indicate that: 1) Indosuchus and Indosaurus are
abelisaurids, as recognised by previous authors; 2) Laevisuchus indicus is
identified as a small abelisaurid, diagnosable by its peculiar cervical
vertebrae; 3) most of the cranial and postcranial bones referred by Huene as
"Allosaurid" and "Coelurosaurian" exhibit abelisaurid traits; 5) the
controversial taxa "Compsosuchus", "Dryptosauroides", "Ornithomimoides", and
"Jubbulpuria" are represented by vertebrae corresponding to different
portions of the neck and tail, that also exhibit abelisaurid features; 6)
unfortunately, most of the available postcranial bones can not be
confidently referred to any of the above mentioned taxa (e.g., Indosuchus,
Indosaurus, Laevisuchus). In regards with the phylogenetic relationships of
Indosuchus, it can be observed that this was a flat-headed abelisaurid,
different from the horned Majungatholus and Carnotaurus. Moreover, the
Indian form resembles Abelisaurus in the morphology of the
frontal-prefrontal suture, suggesting closer relationships with this
Patagonian form.The available material from Bara Simla suggests that India
was populated by a diversity of different-sized abelisaurids, similar to
these recorded in other regions of Gondwana.

My question is, why don't they mention Coeluroides?

Mickey Mortimer