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

Re: dinosaur@usc.edu



> the figure in Elzanowski and Wellnhofer
> (1993; fig. 7B) shows the bone is not well preserved, but seems to have
only
> a small posterior process (as seen in some oviraptorids, etc.).  Indeed,
> examination of figure 12 in that paper confirms that the posterior process
> is too short to qualify as a T-shaped quadratojugal.

Elzanowski & Wellnhofer (1996) has 3 figures that show that bone. In fig. 1
it looks L-shaped. I only have a bad copy of fig. 4 (a photo), I'll have to
look at the original. In fig. 7B the caudal process is bigger than the
squamosal one, so it's anyway not L-shaped in that figure. Fig. 12 is a bit
confusing. On the whole the qj has almost the same shape there as in fig. 1,
but if the jugal and the squamosal process are labeled correctly, then the
3rd process points ventrally and not caudally. Hm. The text is silent.
        The only difference between the qj in fig. 7B above and the
reconstruction of *Sinornithosaurus* in Xu & Wu (2001), fig. 3A, is that in
the latter the postorbital process does not look broken off and that the
jugal process isn't that long. The bulbous caudal processes look IMHO very
similar.
        So can I on the whole conclude that *Archaeopteryx* has an incipient
version of the feature, while pygostylians don't? :-)

Andrzej Elzanowski & Peter Wellnhofer: Cranial morphology of
*Archaeopteryx*: Evidence from the seventh skeleton, JVP 16(1), 81 -- 94
(March 1996)

Xu Xing & Wu Xiaochun: Cranial morphology of *Sinornithosaurus millenii* Xu
et al. 1999 (Dinosauria: Theropoda: Dromaeosauridae) from the Yixian
Formation of Liaoning, China, CJES 38, 1739 -- 1752 (December 2001)