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

Re: Chirostenotes name



Daniel Bensen (dbensen@bowdoin.edu) wrote:

<Hey all, Just a clarification for a quick Chirostenotes painting I did 
http://www.bowdoin.edu/~dbensen/Dinosaurs/Chirostenotespergracilis.html
 ROM 42350 is not _actually_ Chirostenotes pergracilis, right? It's of a
species that _might_ be, but we don't know, right? Did I get all my facts
straight in the page's text?>

  ROM 42350 is a large *Chirtostenotes*, about 8ft in length, if
completed, described by Sues in 1997, and about 10% or so bigger than the
next most complete skeleton, RTMP 79.20.1 (described by Currie and
Russell, 1988). Let me warn you, though, the problem here seems to be a
confusion of the ROM maxilla (which does not tell us if the form has a
crest or not) versus the undescribed Triebold skeleton, which apparently
has the crest. Though some morphological differences do occur between the
RTMP and ROM specimens where there is overlapping material (the ischia)
there is not enough data to determine if there were multiple species in
*C. pergracilis*. It has not been determined whether the Triebold specimen
is even *Chirostenotes*.

  Cheers,

=====
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.

"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com