[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Just got my copy of _Mesozoic Vertebrate Life_ today! Very impressive
One sentence in Dong Zhiming's _Bienosaurus_ paper has me scratching my
"Because the new form (_Bienosaurus_) does not include armor plates, as in
ankylosaurs and stegosaurs, it is best regarded as neither stegosaur nor
ankylosaur, but as a primitive thyreophoran."
This is already odd, since _Bienosaurus_ is not known from any postcranial
elements, so I'd think you wouldn't expect to find armor plates. But it
gets stranger when read in conjunction with other statements:
"A small armored ornithischian [_Bienosaurus_] is referred to the
"I remove Scelidosauridae to Ankylosauria as a basal family. This family
includes several small armored ornithischians (_Emausaurus_,
_Lusitanosaurus_, _Scutellosaurus_, and _Scelidosaurus_)."
1) _Bienosaurus_ does not belong in Ankylosauria.
2) _Bienosaurus_ belongs in Scelidosauridae.
3) Scelidosauridae belongs in Ankylosauria.
Is there a typo? A mistranslation? Am I missing something?
Elsewhere he cites some features uniting _Bienosaurus_ with ankylosaurs,
such as "fusion of small scutes to the frontal and supraorbital bones" and
"dentary wide ... with a strongly curved tooth row". So the paper seems
consistent except for that one sentence.
(Sorry if this was mentioned before and I missed it.)
And, one more question -- wasn't this animal originally going to be named
Bienosaurus crichtoni, after Michael Crichton?
T. MICHAEL KEESEY
Home Page <http://dinosauricon.com/keesey>
The Dinosauricon <http://dinosauricon.com>
personal <email@example.com> --> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
AOL Instant Messenger <Ric Blayze>
Yahoo! Messenger <Mighty Odinn>