[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Maryland Fossils
Christopher Pearsoll (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
<I recently saw a website that speaks of a very large probable
dromaeosaur that was found in Washington DC back in 1959. The
site, if anybody is interested, is at
The site lists the element as missing. As far as I'm (and
others) are considered, if the element cannot be referrenced
directly for anatomical comparison, any referral or distinctions
are moot and circumspect based on the only reproducible data
known (photos) which may not describe as much as the material
housed in BYU and elsewhere. Thus comparison is reduced to
nothing until the element's recovery. By the way, the photo
dscribes the element _backwards_: the postzygapophyses on an
archosaurian caudal are set on a single bondy shaft without much
separation between then, even distally. With this considered,
the long processes are the prezygapophyses and thus the element
is at first referrable to the "dromaeosaur" morphology based on
a single autapomorphy. I'd be loathe to suggest much more
without better quality photos and the element itself for
comparison. Interesting, though. Does anyone know the fascies
and stratigraphy for the recovery site (at first is suggested
the Arudel or an equivalent)?
Jaime A. Headden
Where the Wind Comes Sweeping Down the Pampas!!!!
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.