[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Re Pinacosaurus (was How Did Hadrosaurs Survive?)
Thanks a mint for this one, Ken. The presence of Pinacosaurus in the
Wangshi series confirms a Barungoyotian age, or makes it most parsimonious.
Of course, if lambeosaurs are not present in the Hell Creek, that would suit
me just fine.
From: "Ken Carpenter" <KCarpenter@dmns.org>
Subject: Re Pinacosaurus (was How Did Hadrosaurs Survive?)
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2002 09:18:32 -0700
>>> "Jonathan R. Wagner" <firstname.lastname@example.org> 31/Oct/02 >>>
Tim Donovan wrote:
>> With the exception of that Hell Creek lambeosaur recently reported.
>> it was found stratigraphically low, and certainly seems rare, so maybe
>> lambeosaurs were essentially gone by the Lancian.
>Let's just say that IT ISN'T PUBLISHED, therefore IT ISN'T SCIENCE. I
>recommend you avoid using this data. And yes, for the record, abstracts,
>IMHO, are not really published (they aren't peer-reviewed, you can't name
>new taxa in them, etc.). I know there are some cases where an abstract
>simply presents small, unequivocal bits of information, and there isn't
>point in ignoring it... this is NOT such a case.
Au contraire!! Peer review has nothing to do with publication (many
European, South American and Asian journals are non-reviewed - some even
name new taxon), abstracts are often cited in papers published in JVP
(among others). In the case of this specimen, there is an abstract (JVP
22(3):38A) that does give their justification for it being a lambeosaurine.
The specimen is actually too fragmentary, with key areas being less clear
than the abstract would have us believe. Be careful not to come across as a
intellectual snob to the rest of the world. If I were an editor of one of
these non-North American journals, I would consider your remarks as yet
another "Ugly American."
>> It has been known for years that Buffetaut identified an ankylosaur
>> specimen from the Wangshi as Pinacosaurus, [...]
> And what was the basis for this identification? As I recall, the
>specimen (discussed in the 6th Mesozoic Terrestrial Ecosystems volume) is
>the butt-end of a vertebral column originally identified by Wiman as
>hadrosaurian. There might be more... I found this reference:
> BUFFETAUT E. (1995): An ankylosaurid dinosaur from the Upper
>of Shandong (China). Geol.Mag. 132(6): 683-692
> ...but this appears to be a non-existant paper (!). If you know of
>more, I'd very much like to hear of it.
Really? non-existent? Odd, I wonder what I am looking at. Geological
Magazine is published by Cambridge University Press. Buffetaut describes a
sacrum and ilium, anterior caudal, mid caudal, femur, and scute. As to his
justification as to the specimen being Pinacosaurus, he writes "The main
reason for assigning the ankylosaurid from Tianquiaotun to Pinacosaurus is
the shape of the ilium. As noted by Maryanska (1977, p. 131), 'strong
divergence of the preactebular process is characteristic of
Pinacosaurus....'" He then goes on to make other comparisons. I can find no
fault with his identification. As for the age, Shuvalov (2000, The
Cretaceous stratigraphy and palaeobiogeography of Mongolia; In Benton et
al., (eds.) The Age of Dinosaurs in Russia and Mongolia) reports a
radiometric date for the Baruungoyot Svita (which would include the
Djadokhta (i.e., Pinacosaurus) as 75+/- 7 Myr.
Kenneth Carpenter, Ph.D.
Curator of Lower Vertebrate Paleontology &
Dept. of Earth Sciences
Denver Museum of Natural History
2001 Colorado Blvd.
Denver, CO 80205
Image this: a thundering herd of waddling ankylosaurs..."
Please be advised that this email and
your reply may be monitored by the
Denver Museum of Nature and Science.
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online