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

RE: Status of _Utahraptor_?

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu [mailto:owner-dinosaur@usc.edu]On Behalf Of
Jaime A. Headden
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 8:50 PM
To: dinosaur@usc.edu
Cc: dinogeorge@aol.com; mickey_mortimer@email.msn.com
Subject: Re: Status of _Utahraptor_?

  The *Dromaeosaurus* type is comprised of the nearlu complete
skull, a set of the hyoid ceratobrnchials, and pedal elements.
Nearly complete? I wonder what you think a partial skull is? It's missing
nearly all the upper half!
pedal claw and presumably the intermediate phalanges associated
with it have been referred to the type (Colbert and Russell,
1969: _AMNovitates_ 2380, 49pp) but were removed to
*Saurornitholestes* (Sues, 1978: _Zoo. J. Linn. Soc._ 62,
381-400) based on comparison with pedal claws in that hypodigm.
Really? I'll have to change that in my list. Thanks for the update (ok, its
actually 22 years old, but...).

Warning, Will Robinson! It's not like the pedal elements are
also clearly associated with the holotype paradigm, either. I'm
not one to step on either Ned Colbert's, Dale Russell's, or Hans
Sues' feet, for they've been doing this longer than I have....

  The intermediate phalanges in the dromaeosaurid pes have the
enlarged ventral heel (broken, but analogous in morphology to
the region in *Velociraptor* and *Deinonychus* to show that it
was indeed there, with a deep concavity well distal to the
proximal articulation and a ventral turn of the bone proximal to
this concavity [in lateral view]) on the distal of the two, and
both are of equal length, and articulate; therefore we can
conclude that they [1] pertain to a single individual & [2]
belong to a dromaeosaurid. The association of the type may be
equivocal, but I can't see how Brown would have reassociated
anything for the sake of a type, and I would conclude that the
claw, contra Sues, may actually pertain to the type of
*Dromaeosaurus*; notes on the collection and exact locality are
not clear (Colbert and Russell, 1969 [1-3]; Currie, 1995: _JVP_
15, 5, 576-591 [576]) and I'm not sure how far to take the
comments on monochthony of the specimen.

Will have to check on that some day.