[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
STONESFIELD THEROPODS AGAIN & ALUMINUM
This is coming weeks and weeks late (sorry) but wanted to
get it out of the way. Many posts ago we discussed here the
fact that the Stonefield Slate Fm maxilla OUM J13506
appears fundamentally different from those of
megalosaurids (_Eustreptospondylus_, _Torvosaurus_ etc),
most importantly in lacking the long, low rostral ramus. Its
shape has even led some workers to suggest that it is from a
sinraptorid. This all suggests that - assuming that
_Megalosaurus bucklandii_ [whatever material you base it
on] is a megalosaurid - (1) OUM J13506 is not from _M.
bucklandii_, nor from a megalosaurid at all and (2) there is
more than one big theropod in the Stonesfield Slate Fm. Go
here for my original point....
As has been discussed at length on this list, Stephan
Pickering maintains (following Welles) that much of the
large theropod material from Stonesfield belongs together
and truly does represent a single skeleton. Therefore _M.
bucklandii_ is not based only on the dentary OUM J13505
but on a suite of specimens. While it is not clear that this is
the case from Buckland 1824, Stephan is not alone in this
view as it was also advocated by Delair and [the late]
Sarjeant (2002). According to the following post by
Stephan, OUM J13506 is supposed to be part of this
Please correct me if I'm mistaken (Stephan: you mention
two maxillae but do not cite specimen OUM J13506). If
OUM J13506 is supposed to be part of the allegedly
associated _M. bucklandii_ specimen, and given that OUM
J13506 is fundamentally different from other megalosaurid
maxillae, then either...
(1) Buckland's original specimens do represent one skeleton
but the maxilla shows that _M. bucklandii_ is (a)
fundamentally different from all other megalosaurids or (b)
not a megalosaurid (!).
(2) Buckland's original specimens do not represent one
skeleton, the association of these elements with the dentary
OUM J13505 is incorrect and there is more than one big
theropod at Stonefield.
Moving briefly on to something entirely different, Mike
> That's *aluminum*! :)
Pains me to say it, but aluminum is the correct original
spelling. This was changed in British English when all -um
element endings were standardised to -ium (some time in
the early 1900s I believe). American English therefore
preserves the older spelling and pronunciation.
School of Earth & Environmental Sciences
University of Portsmouth UK, PO1 3QL
tel: 023 92846045