[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Archie skull pneumatics?
On the teeth of Scansoriopteryx HP Jaime Headden wrote:
> This is because *Scansoriopteryx* does not preserve any teeth.
Guess you're wrong about this one, since teeth _are_ preserved on the lower
jaw of Scansoriopteryx. Just two are preserved, but they are, despite their
low number, nonetheless teeth. Many thanks to HP Aspidel who found this out
and told it to me, so the credit should go to him actually... The teeth are
seen in the counterslab (?) of the specimen of the skull area that is
seperately illustrated. Just enlarge the image to a degree that it's big but
that everything is still visible and look somewhere below the lacrymal. Here
you will find a detached tooth lying on the lower jaw, angular IIRC, the
second one is probably still in it's place and is directly left to the
Does this mean that Scansoriopteryx only had teeth on the lower jaws? Nope,
the entire facial region on the skull is missing, so it probably had a full
set of teeth in both it's upper and lower jaws, this in contrary to
Epidendrosaurus IIRC, who only had bony bumps on the lower jaws. The latter
might be wrong though, have yet to view the dentary in detail with Adobe
Photoshop 7, so that's it's possible to enlarge the larger image of the
holotype and to still keep it sharp to a degree that none of the details are
lost... Anyway, Scansoriopteryx had teeth!
Not that this would make a drastic change to the phylogenetic tree or
something, but maybe it's important for the other artists on and off-list to
make their restorations of this genus as accurate as possible.
Again,all the credit has to go to HP Aspidel who discovered this and for
there is an image of the skull of Scansoriopteryx with a single tooth
highlighted. Let me know and the image will be send....
ps. I have to agree with HP Mickey Mortimer that Scansoriopteryx is indeed
the cooler/ sweeter name if the two turned out to be synonymous... :)