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

Patricosaurus is not a theropod



Hi everyone.  One name everyone seems to have on their dinosaur lists is Patricosaurus merocratus.  This is based on its inclusion in George's master dinosaur list, which is explained by George in the following sentence-
"This genus, based on the proximal end of a femur, is not lacertilian as originally classified but is probably an indeterminate small theropod (R. E. Molnar, pers. comm.)."
However, after asking Ralph Molnar about it, he had this to say-
"I have looked at the paper on Patricosaurus, and I am not convinced that it is a lizard, as originally described. But regarding its being a theropod, I'm afraid that a negative got left out somewhere along the line. I do not think that it is a theropod either, but unfortunately I don't know what it is. In fact, if I remember correctly, I felt that it wasn't an archosaur at all. But I last looked at the paper some years ago, & now don't recall why I rejected theropod as an identification."
So, as there is no longer an expert who has claimed it is theropod, and there have been no arguements made that would validate such a position, I think it best we remove the animal from our dinosaur lists.  I've read the original description and honestly can't say what it is.  It's only known from a proximal femur and referred sacral vertebra.  The femoral head is much too tall for a theropod and what would be the anterior trachantor is placed too far medially and projects too far anteriorly.  The sacral vertebra has a neural canal almost as high as the centrum.  Anyone who wants to take a look themselves, e-mail me and I'll send you a scan of the remains.
 
Mickey Mortimer