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

Re: the short-toothed ctenochasmatid



David Peters wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Peters" <davidrpeters@earthlink.net>
To: "dinosaur list" <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2003 8:57 AM
Subject: re: the short-toothed ctenochasmatid


> Checking out other references in my files, I came across the
> short-toothed ctenochasmatid paper a few minutes after the last post.
> The strange rostrum belongs to Ctenochasma porocristata (Buisonjé 1981).
>
> Perhaps the reason why it passed previous notice is that Buisonje, in
> his reconstruction, followed a paradigm and lengthened the teeth,
> thinking they were all broken off during taphonomy. The trouble is, most
> of the tips are sharp and they appear to be vertically implanted.
>
> Probably not Ctenochasma.
>
>


I realize that I have not "use[d] the camera, computer, mouse and pen to
make my own drawings from which to make conclusions" but have instead used
the highly unreliable method of actually examining the specimen under a
binocular microscope.  Moreover, I have only repeated those unreliable
observations twice (in 1993 and 2002).  However, both times I found evidence
that convinced me that de Buisonje was right and the teeth were broken off.
The broken ends of the untapering cylindrical teeth embedded in the jaw were
pretty hard to miss.  Now maybe if I took a low resolution photo, scanned it
into a computer, used lots of descreen followed by lots of sharpen, traced
every feature of the specimen and surrounding matrix, and then tried to
interpret it in some way contrary to my actual observations, well then maybe
I could see the light and agree with David Peters.


Chris


S. Christopher Bennett, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Basic Sciences
College of Chiropractic
University of Bridgeport
Bridgeport, CT 06601-2449