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

Re: new NA oviraptorosaur(was R: Tucson)

David Marjanovic wrote-

> > Here's what I know. It's about the size of _Dilophosaurus_, with a
> slightly
> > smaller tail. The last three tail verts are fused together.
> Hahaaaaaa... =8-)

Just hold on a second there.  Have Jonathan's posts regarding abstract
accuracy taught you nothing?  Remember this is simply information reported
by e-mail (not to question Rob's credibility or anything).  It's not
published in any way or form.  Add to this the fact that the tail could very
well have been reconstructed in plaster, as this is a mount where they added
in everything that wasn't preserved (even sclerotic rings).  Also, the
presence of a pygostyle in caenagnathids (which the lower jaw and ilium show
this specimen is) would still make the presence of a pygostyle in ancestral
oviraptorosaurs equivocal.  If we believe the phylogeny ((Caudi+Noming)
(Caenag+Ovirap)), pygostyles could have evolved twice as easily as they
could have been lost twice.  On the other hand, the presence of a pygostyle
in caenagnathids might support the inclusion of Nomingia within the family.
The highly curved ischium and pleurocoelous proximal caudals would also
support this, although there is still more evidence for placing Nomingia in
the Caudipteridae.  If the crest is real, caenagnathid affinities for
"Rinchenia" might want to be considered, especially when the tall ilium with
an elongate preacetabular process is taken into account.  Or maybe the whole
caenagnathid-oviraptorid dichotomy is too simplified and needs to be
reworked.  So many possibilities, so little published data.

> AFAIK the known specimens of *C.* are adult and much smaller.

A large specimen described by Sues (1997) has pubes 422 mm long.  The
holotype of Dilophosaurus has pubes 485 mm long, so there is not that much
size difference.

Mickey Mortimer