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


Shalom, good evening. In my in-progress Mutanda Dinosaurologica -- a revision and updating of Sam Welles's unpublished manuscript (with 400+ photographs) on Jurasssic theropods -- Proceratosaurus, known only by a skull, is positioned as Maniraptoriformes incertae sedis. The skull, described in minute detail and compared with other taxa, is demonstrably not a ceratosaur. Neither is Ornitholestes AMNH 619, certain aspects of its osteology similar to Proceratosaurus.  The "horn" of both taxa is conjectural , but, as Sam often told me, Gregory Paul's superb restoration is probably a conjecture better than most because the care Mr Paul takes with all of his restorations and reconstructions. There is, of course, no excuse for the  horrendously inaccurate restoration of Ceratosaurus in Jurassic Park III (which continues the racialist colonialism of the Horrorwood ethos, alien to Mr Crichton's original visions):  th! e ! ! unicorn-like visage  not known for any  theropod. Dilophosaurus's two species, moreover, may be sexually dimorphic representatives, crested females to attract males (in this case, males being the crestless forms known as Liliensternus) -- speculation, to be sure, but more viable than the heterosexist filters one encounters (e.g., the gaudily frilled ceratopsians are often described as "male" to entice females; this is nonsense: ceratopsians were female-dominated). Anatomically, it would have been impossible, I should note, for Dilophosaurus to have possessed an expandable neck-cowl.  The point is: theropods were logically matrilineal, and "horns", "crests", etc. visual signals for smaller, drab males.
Mahzel tov, dinosaurily. Stephan P