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

Re: Tyrant stuff (no longer ranting) (was RE: Rant (was RE: Details on SVP 20...

You wrote:

>If there was no land bridge, they
> could not possibly be related as closely as everyone else thinks, and
> therefore they weren't the same genus, and we would have to find some
> Turonian ancestor for *"Tarbosaurus" efremovi*, even if someone allies
> them to "albertosaurs" instead (note that there are no identified
> "albertosaurs" previous to the Campanian).
OK, what's deal with Tarbosaurus efremovi? Now I am getting confused, since
I heard from HP Thomas Holtz jr. that it is just an ontogenetic stage to
Tarbosaurus bataar and now you write this is your message. Is Tarbosaurus
efremovi a valid species or is it a junior synonym for Tarbosaurus bataar?
It makes more sense in it being a different species, based mainly on the
skulls preserved for "Maleevosaurus" and "Deinodon" lancinator. The former
appears to be lacking a postorbital than extends into the orbit, while "D."
lancinator has one. When looking at the skull of both Tarbosaurus efremovi
and Tarbosaurus bataar, the former is also lacking the into the orbit
extending postorbital, while the latter has one. Therefore I believe that
"Maleevosaurus" is a juvenile Tarbosaurus efremovi and that "Deinodon"
lancinator is a juvenile T. bataar.


Rutger Jansma