Elzanowski, 2001. A novel reconstruction of the
Archaeopteryx skull, 227.
This is about possible kinesis in the seventh
specimen. She suggests there was flexion in front of the braincase, a
sliding lacrimal-jugal joint and a quadrate-pterygoid propulsion joint.
However, there does not appear to be a prokinetic flexion zone. Thus,
Archaeopteryx may have had a unique type of cranial
Sounds interesting -- this moves Archie
away from birds, IMHO.
BTW, even though Poland has brought forth a
large number of internationally famous female dinosaur paleontologists (just off
the top of my head: Zofia Kielan-Jaworowska, Teresa Marya´nska, Halszka
Osmólska), Andrzej El´zanowski is male -- Andrzej is the Polish form of Andrew
(remove the diacritic z and you get it in Russian), and his last name ends in
-ski rather than -ska. (Accents belong on the n and z, not before)
Hurum, 2001. Tarbosaurus vs. Tyrannosaurus,
Actually a misnomer, this has nothing to do
whatsoever with the Tarbosaurus-Tyrannosaurus debate. It is simply a
shorter version of the JVP short paper discussing how the fused supradentary
and coronoid(?) made the mandible of tyrannosaurids
Ah, the Great Coronoid Confusion.
Apparently the supradentary is what is called coronoid II by some and
intercoronoid by others. (Coronoid alone is coronoid III; AFAIK all amniotes
have lost coronoid I, which is located far forward in the lower
Kundrat, Cruickshank, Manning and Joysey, 2001.
Structure of the embryonic parabasisphenoid in a therizinosauroid dinosaur,
Discusses the pneumatized basispenoid of a
therizinosauroid embryo found in a dendroolithid egg (75-90 mm) from the
Nanchao Formation, Henan, China. Most is on details of the internal
structure too technical for me to find useful.
So it is really therizinosauroid?
Ruben and Jones, 2001. Feathered dinosaurs and
other myths: A cold hard look at reality, 278.
So...... horrible....... difficult to read
without laughing. Remember everyone- Sinosauropteryx's and
Sinornithosaurus' "filaments and feathers" are simply collagen fibers,
Pelecanimimus has scales (bwah?!), Protarchaeopteryx is a volant bird and
Caudipteryx is also avian. It's all so obvious that I feel like
screaming and doing violent things when I realize people can still support
this type of crap. But I digress.....
Seems like "this type of scrap" will die
only with its supporters, as have many other falsified ideas
I'd love to know whether Feduccia (an
ornithologist, after all) agrees with calling *Protarchaeopteryx*