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

Re: OMEISAUR CLUBS, PACHYRHINOSAUR



You wrote:

>AH, I see the problem. The drawing (of Pachyrhinosaurus) 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.
>
Oh, if that is the case, this would make the Dinosaur Dictionary more
correct in this, since this showed the skul without it's frill. But isn't
this wrong science, I mean, by attaching a hypothetical frill on a partial
skull? This brings up a totally different discussion about what is wrong and
what is right, but wouldn't it be just better if they at least dotted the
lines of the frill?
Or Lull had a time machine in which he could travel forward in time :)

ps. sorry for the mix-up
>
>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
>use.<<
>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.
>
Or make it male or a different species.
>
>Tracy L. Ford

>
Rutger Jansma (exams are totally not funny :( )