As far as Protoavis is concerned. I did talk to Brian Small (who worked the quarry) and he said as George had commented (and so would I have had!) that it was found in one area. I don’t think it is a chimera. But that does bring up a point that several sites may be chimeric. Possibly more than we think. The MOR has a site with an ankylosaurid skull and osteoderms with spines. I’d love for it to be from a single individual, but IMHO it’s not. The spine looks identical to nodosaur spines. I can’t imagine two different (though in the same order) having the exact same armor. Jack disagrees with me.
I’d be very weary of commenting on chimeras (though I’m not saying that it doesn’t happen). Alectrosaurus isn’t really a chimera in the sense of it being from the same quarry. The leg and arm are from two different areas and were placed into the same genus. Why, I couldn’t tell you. Prosauropods were thought to have been carnivorous because shed teeth (not either known or thought of) when the skeletons of prosauropods were found. Chimeric, I suppose you can say that.
Tracy L. Ford
P. O. Box 1171
Poway Ca 92074