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

Re: Ornitholestes



--- Ivan Kwan wrote:
I read recently that it has been discovered that _Ornitholestes_ did not in fact possess a horn/ crest/ protuberance on its snout. How accepted is this view? Does this mean that all the restorations of horned _Ornitholestes_ erroneous?

I think it's discussed in Rauhut's thesis that _O._ did not have a crest, but I don't know if it is widely accepted.


And what about _Proceratosaurus_? Is it still considered a close relative of _Ornitholestes_, and did it have a horn as well?


I don't think that _P._ has been considered a close relative for some time now. Yes, it did still have a crest/horn.


(Of course, we can always say that the holotype of _Ornitholestes_ was a female and thus would not have a horn, while the males would have horns, but then...)


Actually, we can't just say it. You'd need evidence in the first place that a specimen did have a crest, then you'd need sufficient number of specimens in order to demonstrate that there is sexual variation regarding the crest as well as demonstrating that the different sets of specimens were indeed the same species and not separate.


Nick Gardner

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus