[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: OMEISAUR CLUBS, PACHYRHINOSAUR
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of Fam
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 8:39 AM
Subject: Re: OMEISAUR CLUBS, PACHYRHINOSAUR
>A little more than 10 years (I think). Darren Tanke of the Royal Tyrell
>Museum found (I think he did) the specimens. He has been working on it off
>and on from that time. He wrote to me and explained what was found and I
>a quick drawing of it. He corrected the drawing and I did several of them
As is seen on your webpage, excellent work!
>What? I checked the Dinosauria and couldn't find the drawing, could you
>me so I can find it? Pachyrhinosaurus was named in 1950, not by Lull in
>1933. The Pipestone Creek Pachyrhinosaurus IS different than any known
>Ceratopian and from the previously known Pachyrhinosaurus (from the
>Drumheller area and doesn't really look that much like it's more northern
>cousin). I have no reverence to the Lull, 1933 specimen that the Dinosauria
>is revering to and would like to know which one it is.
The drawing is on page 596 and can't see any reason why it isn't in your
copy. Mine was bought for my birthday two summers back in England, so it is
not even a very recent purchase.<
oh, my fault, you ment the BOOK Dinosauria and not the web page.
Yeah, the date was rechecked in the
Dinosauria and indeed it is 1950. The reason that the Lull paper was given
as a reference, was because the exact reference is missing and the next
genus listed on the page was Centrosaurus which came from the Lull paper.<<
AH, I see the problem. The drawing in the Dinosauria is incorrect. The Type
skull, which the drawing is done from, is missing the frill and the
artist/author assumed that this genus did have the 'unicorn' frill, which is
incorrect. Pachyrhinosaurus was described in 1950 so Lull wouldn't have
known about it.
Assuming that you don't need to repeat the same reference twice...
The reference is: Lull, R.S. 1933. A revision of the Ceratopsia or horned
dinosaurs. Peabody Mus. Nat. Hist. Bull. 3: 1-175. Hope that that is of any
The type and referred material is from a larger more robust animal than the
Pipestone Creek specimen. In fact it may become a new genus.
>>In exactly what way do both specimens differ? Does it look more like
Achelousaurus for example or are the similarities due to convergence?
>It's positively different. Also, Centrosaurus nasicornis and Styracosaurus
>are different genera. There are bone beds of both animals from Dinosaur
>Provincial Park (Though the Styracosaurus bonebed hasn't been described
>actually in a thesis that I should get this year). I've been to both bone
>beds (In fact if any of you out there remember the PaleoWorld with Darren
>Tanke and yours truly :) walking around a pathological bone, then examining
>it, that's the Styracosaurus bone bed).
Who brought up those two genera, but hey, who cares, interesting to know
Styracosaurus is known from beds too now. <<
Mickey Mortimer brought it up.
>>Always thought it was a rather
obscure Ceratopsid. Has there been any news regarding the other species of
Styracosaurus, S. ovatus? Is it any diagnostic? Last thing I've heard was
that it was based on partial skulls that seem to have had two pair of frill
spikes instead of the usual three pair.
Maybe an interesting trip go there someday.
>Tracy L. Ford
Tracy L. Ford
P. O. Box 1171
Poway Ca 92074