[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
> well have been reconstructed in plaster, as this is a mount where they
> 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
> this specimen is) would still make the presence of a pygostyle in
> 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.
> > 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!