[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: !RE: biggest predators (Allosaurid "Dynasty")
> Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 12:54:12 -0500
> From: "Thomas R. Holtz, Jr." <email@example.com>
> > Well yes ... but then the Tyrannosaurs were rather cut off their
> > prime by that inconvenient bolide. (Or volcanic activity! Don't
> > hurt me! :-) Given the increase in bulk through the chronological
> > sequence T. efremovi -> T. bataar -> T. rex,
> Ummmm... what chronological sequence? It isn't _T. efremovi_ -> _T.
> bataar_ -> _T. rex_ (even accepting for the moment that
> _T. efremovi_ and _T. bataar_ are different species: something not
> generally accepted by tyrannosaurid workers!!). The two Mongolian
> forms occur in the same Formation (the Nemegt), and there is not
> enough stratigraphic evidence at present to say if the big material
> is stratigraphically above the smaller stuff.
Oops. ``Meddle not in the affairs of phylogenists, for they are
subtle and swift to point out your bonehead mistakes.'' :-)
Sorry, I was assuming too much.
> > DISCLAIMER: I have not yet integrated Thomas Holtz's "Geeze, what
> > a way to start the week..." rant :-)
Well, I didn't feel up to trying to summarise it. I'm about to take a
stab now, though. Wish me luck ... ``I may not be back for some
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor -- <firstname.lastname@example.org> -- http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/
)_v__/\ "Never ruin an apology with an excuse" -- Kimberly Johnson.