[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Torvosaurus (or Megalosaurus) in Europe?
Mickey Mortimer (Mickey_Mortimer111@msn.com) wrote:
<I do agree that the exact relationships of Torvosaurus, Edmarka and
"Brontoraptor" (ha ha ha :-) , it is useful to inform people what
"Brontoraptor" refers to, lest they see the name and not know what it is,
or think it's a dromaeosaurid *cringe*) are uncertain. See
http://www.rjames.com/megalosaur/index.htm for a description of the
material that was to be named "Brontoraptor".>
Contrary to Mickey Mortimer's zeal for the public use of unpublished
names, even contrary to the advice of the very authors themselves (Chure's
admonishment to use of his new, thesis name for *"Chilantaisaurus"
maortuensis* being ignored), is rather disheartening as it indicates to
the younger members of this list that it's okay to reveal unpublished
named. Who cares if someone comes upon a name that suggests a dromaeosaur
but is in fact a raptor? This is the public's fault anyway, and this is
what the list is for, anyway ... discussion. Otherwise, as is clear from
the content of the document, the authors clearly express a lack of use of
the name as a result of further study and the impartation of admonishment
by a reviewer (during Submission of the manuscript) ... the name is not
used anywhere in the document despite it's application in more public
occasions by Robert Bakker. Does this make it okay? No.... That Bakker had
intended to publish this suggests that continued use of an unpublished
name is pre-emptory of his and his co-authors efforts, and is an
infringement on his right to publish. The same goes for a variety of names
bandied about unpublished and taken to be available despite the authors'
warnings. I certainly wouldn't want any name I made ready for publication
to be allowed to become public before I was ready.
On the subject of megalosaurs, show me one specimen linking the various
Wealden material referred to *Megalosaurus* to the jaw ... in the nature
of the jaw, some features, though questionable toward birds, indicate that
*Torvosaurus* has a greater affinity to spinosaurs including fusion of the
interdental plates, that *Megalosaurus* lacks. The use of the latter name
should be restricted to the type, until more material can be produced to
link cranial and postcranial elements. Certainly, this may be why
*Megalosaurus* has not appeared in further analyses. In the one analysis
it has, it was more basal relative to birds than was *Torvosaurus*, and in
Rauhut's thesis, this was also the case. I beleive Sereno has written on
the nature of *Megalosaurus* and *Poekilopleuron* being synonymous, and
the comparison of *Poekilopleuron* shows that it was more basal than
*Torvosaurus* as well. Compare tail and other vertebrate anatomy (I have
to some degree). Yeah ... others includes me [I haven't shown this to
anyone else, though ... but I did say "work by ... and others"].
And could someone who has it please photocopy me the page of their
version of Currie, Rigby and Sloan's Dinosaur Systematics paper on Judith
River teeth ... with *Ricardoestesia* ... that includes the use of
*Ric[h]ardoestesia*? I understand that the latter name may have been
intended, but unless It was published, it's too late to provide an
emendation as it has been used successively in many papers (including
faunal lists of the Judith River Group, comparative stratigraphic research
of NA and Laurasia, and descriptions of NA teeth types). Believe me, every
time I see Judith River in a paper, I look to see if it has
"Richardoestesia", and find nothing of the sort. Sankey's species *R.
isoceles* also uses the published spelling (no "h").
Jaime A. Headden
Little steps are often the hardest to take. We are too used to making leaps
in the face of adversity, that a simple skip is so hard to do. We should all
learn to walk soft, walk small, see the world around us rather than zoom by it.
Do You Yahoo!?
Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email!