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

Re: So here it is...



David Marjanovic wrote-

> Can you give me the ref of the *Bagaraatan* article? (Probably I can't get
> the journal, anyway...)

Osmolksa, H. 1996. An unusual theropod dinosaur from the Late Cretaceous
Nemegt Formation of Mongolia. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 41: 1-38.

I had to order the whole volume from Poland.  It was worth it though.

> What is this ref?

Referring to Watabe et al. (2000)?
Watabe, Weishampel, Barsbold, Tsogtbaatar ans Suzuke, 2000. New nearly
complete skeleton of the bird-like theropod, Avimimus, from the Upper
Cretaceous of the Gobi Desert, Mongolia. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology,
20(3) 77A.

> How do pleurocoels start ontogenetically?

Interesting question.  Makovicky and Sues (1998) indicate pleurocoels arise
ontogenetically from depressions, as in the cervical depressions of the
juvenile Microvenator holotype.

> Okay, okay, okay...

In fact, just today I received Zhou et al. (2000) with a figure showing the
distal caudal vertebrae (18-22) all unfused and all but the last two
disarticulated.  So if you need final proof of the absence of a pygostyle in
Caudipteryx, just ask and I'll scan you the figure.

> As for the mentioned chicks being *Byronosaurus* instead of
> *Velociraptor*... is this in the description of *B.* in JVP? (In this case
I
> have overlooked that... Strange...)

I'm confused too.  I didn't see reference to that in Byronosaurus'
description.  I just know they were identified as "troodontid" by Norell and
Makovicky (1999).  Perhaps Jaime assumes their lack of serrations isn't
ontogenetic (which is probable based on known juvenile teeth) and that they
therefore are from Byronosaurus, or perhaps we're just missing a sentence or
two in the JVP paper.

> Does *Rahonavis* fall anywhere certain in your phylogenies, or does it
jump
> around as ever?

Rahonavis is about as stable as Archaeopteryx, Microraptor, Sinornithosaurus
and Unenlagia (its closest relatives), which is to say it's not.  Some type
of Eumaniraptoran, non-dromaeosaurid and non-pygostylian.

> Really, in all specimens?

Don't know.  I lack crucial references.  It's that way in the Solnhofen
specimen, but the proper elements are missing in the Eichstatt specimen.

Mickey Mortimer