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

RE: Gauthier & de Quieroz et al.

Stephan Pickering wrote:
> I remember
>vividly the media hoopla over the Egyptian sauropod based upon
>fragments, which is Sauropoda indet., should not have been given a name,
>etc. etc. 

Surely, you don't mean _Paralititan stromeri_!  The material is certainly
adequate to diagnose a taxon.

By the way, when can we expect your new description (and new generic name)
for _Zanclodon cambrensis_ - known from the mold of a theropod jaw fragment.

>A similar example is, to be sure, the sorry nomenclatural
>history of fossil avialian theropods described on the basis of
>fragmentary metatarsals 

I have to agree with you here.  There is definitely a large number of
Mesozoic avian species emanating from the Soviet Union (past and present)
that are based on scrappy, indeterminate material.

>(all irrelevant without skeletons/skulls for detailed analyses), 

Well, I wouldn't go that far...



Timothy J. Williams 

USDA-ARS Researcher 
Agronomy Hall 
Iowa State University 
Ames IA 50014 

Phone: 515 294 9233 
Fax:   515 294 3163