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

Re: Rinchenia (was: A critique of Lu et al.'s (2002) Oviraptorosaurs compared to birds)

Marco Auditore (maaudito@tin.it) wrote:

<This is because the paper was written in 2000 or before, but published in
 2002. The genus Citipati "born" in the 2001. For Jaime and Mickey: what
is Your idea about "Rinchenia"? From drawn and photo of the skull, seems
to me that even this specimen, whit exclusion of the tall crest, is REALLY
like to Citipati. Maybe this is the cause for the non-description of  this
new genus. So we can have the new Citipati mongoliensis (Barsbold, 1986).>

  My comments on *Oviraptor mongoliensis* are very scarce, based as they
are on the type skull and only some pers. comm. it would not be etiquette
to pass on. However, my personal opinion is generally "Rinchenia" would be
a nice designation for the animal, as it is quite different from the type
of *Oviraptor philoceratops* and it figures in my preliminary analysis as
an intermediate form. The maxilla and dentary are generally and relatively
long and the palate "simple" without much "vestigialization" of the
cranial rami, suggesting a fairly unique position compared to other taxa.
Phyletically, the gross morphology is similar to *O. philoceratops*, but
this may be plesiomorphic, and for my full run down, you will probably
need to wait for when I can get my website going on the long-awaited
oviraptorosaur section -- fits and starts :)


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!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now