[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Conway's Nyctosaurus Restoration
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Peters" <email@example.com>
To: "James R. Cunningham" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "dinosaur list"
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 1:14 AM
Subject: Re: Conway's Nyctosaurus Restoration
> My confusion comes from looking at Bennett's Fig. 6, which shows KJ1 with
> superior ramus roughly 75 cm long and a posterior ramus roughly 15 cm long
> ratio), while KJ2 sports a shorter superior ramus, roughly 60 cm long and
> posterior ramus, roughly 30 cm long (2:1 ratio).
> Are the shorter rami considered broken?
As I noted in the paper, the ends of both rami of KJ1 are broken and so both
might have been longer. The reconstruction of the crest of KJ2 is my best
guess at assembling a series of scattered fragments--it is possible [or
perhaps probable would be a more appropriate word here!] that I have done it
incorrectly. For example, it is possible that the fragments that I
interpreted as forming the posterior ramus belonged instead to the superior
ramus, in which case the superior ramus would be much longer than I
reconstructed and the length of the posterior ramus would be unknown. Given
the uncertainty as to how the fragments should be reassembled, I think the
most important message we should draw from KJ2 is that there was variation
in the angles of the rami and there seems to have been some variation in the
angle of the crest relative to the skull.
S. Christopher Bennett, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Basic Sciences
College of Chiropractic
University of Bridgeport
Bridgeport, CT 06601