[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Javelina Hadrosaurs [was: Re: Hadrosaurs etc]
> >Some of the well inland environments e.g. Javelina, were clearly
> dominated. Some hadrosaurs were present but not necessarily the same types
> as in the lowlands.<
> So they would be lambeosaurs then, if they weren't the lowland forms (as
> you've been saying lowland=hadrosaurid, uplands=lambeosaurs).
Let me make this as clear as I can: NONE OF YOU KNOWS WHAT HADROSAURS WERE
PRESENT IN THE JAVELINA FM. I can say this with confidence, because Tom
Lehman is the only one with specimens currently, and neither he nor I know
what they are for certain. I have publicly presented evidence that, contrary
to the insinuations of the above quote (which was unattributed... Rob, would
you please attribute quoted text in your posts from now on?), the one
hadrosaur known from the Javelina actually IS the same taxon as some
specimens from the Aguja (whatever they may be). This isn't in print, and it
should NOT be quoted, and we may decide that this is not the case based on
further, as-yet undescribed remains. However, it should be enough to inspire
some caution on the part of whomever stated this. In words of an icon: wait
for the paper.
Also, the characterization of lambeosaurines as upland vs. lowland
"hadrosaurines: is cast in extremely broad strokes. There are certainly
non-hollow-crested taxa that appear to be definitively "upland."
Lastly, a minor quibble: lambeosaurINE and hadrosaurINE are the preferred
terms. AFAIK, no one is using Horner's exclusive, "family"-rank distinction
of Lambeosauridae vs. Hadrosauridae. Hadrosauridae has almost invariably
included "lambeys." Also, the term "lambeosaur" should, following George
Olshevsky's guidelines, be used for either members of Lambeosaurus, or a
taxon Lambeosauria. The latter taxon is also not in use by anyone I know of.