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


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
>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
>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 :( )