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

Re: Saurolophus






From: "Mickey Mortimer" To: Subject: Re: Saurolophus Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 15:00:05 -0700

You wrote-


> Is Saurolophus kryschtofovici the same as S. angustirostris?

According to Norman and Sues (2001), it is based on a fragment of an ischium that is indeterminate.
If I remember correctly, Glut's Dinosaurs The Encyclopedia included an illustration of the ischium and indicated S. kryschtofovici was synonymous with S. angustirostris.
It was found at the same site as the chimaerical
Mandschurosaurus and the lambeosaurine Charonosaurus.
I assume these hadrosaurs were from exposures of the "Tsagayanskayasvita" on the Chinese side of the Amur river, at Jiayin, and were formerly named Tanius. But on page 133 of The Dinosauria Weishampel indicated that S. kryschtofovici was not from the Tsagayan but from an unnamed unit in Heilongjiang, which also yielded "Albertosaurus periculosus" (?Tarbosaurus)and is considered of Nemegtian age by Lucas. Weishampel's source was Riabinin.
I'm not sure exactly
where Amurosaurus was found, but it was nearby as well.
Amurosaurus is from Blagoveschensk and Kundur on the Russian side of the Amur, and is probably coeval with the Jiayin hadrosaurs but not S. kryshtofovici. -Tim

Mickey Mortimer

_________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com