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

Re: new NA oviraptorosaur(was R: Tucson)



> > > 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).

Okay, okay... I just wanted to say "Yet another oviraptorosaur with a
*Nomingia*-style pygostyle"... I'm not going to publish anything in the
foreseeable future, so I won't draw great conclusions on that, OK?

> 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.

Of course.

> > 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.

Thanks for this information!