[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Status of _Caudipteryx_
Alessandro Marisa wrote-
> Yes in the Makovicky's paper on Microvenator the postacetabular region is
> not preserved, but I've downloaded two photos of the ilium of Microvenator
> in the AMNH search-Site in which the preacetabolar region is present, but
> this case however I don't known - and I don't have such good eye to see -
> the postacetabular region are reconstructed in plaster, however from this
> photos the preacetabular region is shorter than the postacetabular region.
I'm sure the postacetabular processes are reconstructed in the AMNH photos.
But, as I said in my post, I'm not contesting the fact that Microvenator has
a short preacetabular process, I'm contesting the fact that the character is
> I'm very interesting in the Ingenia's ilium because within the
> only Ingenia has a shallow ilium with a straight dorsal margin not a deep
> ilium with a convex dorsal margin. For my comparison I use the
> pubblished in "The Dinosauria" but I don't know if it is affidable, could
> you tell me when I can found some good photos or illustrations of the
> Ingenia's ilium?
Well, the Oviraptoridae is undergoing serious revision by Clark, Norell,
Barsbold and others. This makes it difficult to trust assignment of various
remains to different genera. Besides the Ingenia ilium in The Dinosauria
(which I used as well), the crestless oviraptorids photographed in Hunting
Dinosaurs and Audubon (March-April 1997, p.40) have low ilia with straight,
or even concave, dorsal margins. Whatever these two skeletons are, they
look very close to each other. There is a lot of variation in the
Oviraptoridae that we haven't began to appreciate.
> Yes, the anterior margin of the AMNH 3015's ilium is unknown, but based on
> the illustration of Ostrom (1969, and 1976) there are some difference in
> ilium of the two specimens of Deinonychus, expecially in the deep of the
> preacetabular region, in the dorsal margin of the ilium and in the
> orientation of the pubic peduncle.
Such variation seems a bit extreme within a species, which is why I think
that Ostrom's statements imply the reconstruction of AMNH 3015 is tentative
and MCZ 4371 is more representative of what Deinonychus ilia looked like.
This would also match the morphology of Unenlagia more.