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

Re: Albisaurus... and Shuvuuia... and Cryptovolans

David Marjanovic (david.marjanovic@gmx.at) wrote:

<At last I learn it's Tögrögiyn...>

  Yet another variation on the name generally provided as Toogreeg,
Tugriikin, or Tugriken[shireh], depending on where you're coming from; the
above cited spelling is very Cyrillic in its structure. The original
language (Altaic in nature) lacks diacritics, written normally as it is in
a derivation of Sanskrit text, and its the transliteration in different
languages that forms the variations in spelling. In Russian, Polish,
English, etc., it has always been different. I think it would be
practical, but not possible, to concretely lay down a single spelling to
be used by all. This is why the Maroccain in France are Moroccan in
English-speaking countries. I tend to follow the native country, but then
again, without an established English orthography from a board from
Mongolia, it will be difficult to say any one spelling is more real than
another. Currently in Mongolian, both a Cyrillic (dominant) and a Sanskrit
(not so dominant, but with growing support) text are becoming widely used
together, ever since the 1991 independance of the country. Many Mongolians
are bilingual, speaking Mongolian and at least either Russian, Chinese,
Turkic, or English. This will lead to a lot of variation in presentation
of spellings. For instance, in the publications of the AMNH, a general
continuity of spelling has arisen in place names that does not follow the
recommendations of Benton et al., _Age of Dinosaurs in China and
Mongolia_, and these will often include Perle Altangerel [Mongolian names
similarly shift about in spelling, you pretty much have to agree on how to
spell it, as said from the Mongolians themselves] who then published a
manuscript (perhaps accidentally) on *Achillobator* [which probably would
have been corrected to "Achillobataar" in American orthography] where the
spellings were completely different.

<OK, not linguistics again.>

  Sorry. Felt it was important.

<I don't completely  understand why the authors think *S.* has more than
35 vertebrae in its surprisingly *Jeholornis*-like tail. More than 25 are
preserved, but with counting through the missing parts, I can barely pass
30. Where's my mistake? Do I underestimate the missing number of proximal

  The authors state that there is incomplete preservation of the proximal
and distal region. Indeed, some caudals are disarticulated distally, and
it is likely that they compared the caudals to taxa with more complete
tails proximally to arrive at a roughly not-so-proximal to cranial-distal
length for the tail. Unlike previous estimates, the tail vertebrae do not
become elongated until the last three or so, but rather is peters out in
the posterior middle tail, then shortens consecutively, which would add up
to fifteen caudals from the new series onto previous estimates. The
authors state that the articulated sequence comes from the middle to
distal section, and does not consist of the proximal section.


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!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus ? Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.