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

Re: Paralititan



Ekaterina Amalitzkaya wrote-

> Unfortunately a comparison with the other titanosaur Aegyptosaurus from
the
> same horizon is not satisfactorily covered in this paper. But they state
> that there are sufficient differences to rule out synonymy.

I think they do a fine job-
Although the holotype of Aegyptosaurus (1912VIII61) was destroyed, and
comparison with Paralititan is thus difficult, several characters
distinguish them. Specimen 1912VIII61 was substantially smaller (humerus
length 59% that of Paralititan), may have had pleurocoelous
proximal caudals (33), possessed a weakly medially convex scapula with no
dorsomedial prominence, had a humerus with a weak proximomedial expansion
and more medially positioned deltopectoral crest restricted to the proximal
third of the element, and lacked the
autapomorphies of Paralititan. Stromer (33) tentatively referred several
isolated elements to Aegyptosaurus, including an indeterminate vertebra
(1912VIII66), two possible caudal cervicals (1912VIII67), and an isolated
procoelous caudal (1912VIII65). Because two Bahariya Formation titanosaurids
are now recognized, this material referred to Aegyptosaurus must be
considered Titanosauria incertae sedis.

Mickey Mortimer