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

Re: The Holy of Holies... Dinosauria II



Is it possible that sexual dimorphism could be responsible for some of
the diagnostic confusion between the 3 species (4, if you include
_saskatchewanensis_)?

<pb>
--


On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 21:19:25 +0200 Alessandro <amaris@tin.it> writes:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Thomas R. Holtz, Jr." <tholtz@geol.umd.edu>
> To: <jonathan.r.wagner@mail.utexas.edu>
> Cc: "Dinosaur Discussion List" <dinosaur@usc.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 8:07 PM
> Subject: RE: The Holy of Holies... Dinosauria II
> 
> 
> >The third possibility is a two genus solution a la Wright and Lull, 
> with
> >Edmontosaurus regalis and Anatosaurus annectens and Anatosaurus 
> copei
> >(assuming the phylogeny is indeed regalis + (annectens + copei)).
> 
> And what about Edmontosaurus saskatchewanensis? It's more closely 
> related to
> E. regalis or to E. annectens+"A". copei? My first suggestion is to 
> E.
> regalis, but I don't have nothing about E. saskatchewanensis a part 
> for the
> skull present in "The Dinosauria" and in Horner 1992 monograph on
> Prosaurolophus.
> 
> By
> ---------------------------------------
> Alessandro Marisa
> Via A. grandi n.18
> 38068 ROVERETO (TN)
> email: amaris@tin.it
> or: iguanodontia@yahoo.it
> ITALY
> ----------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 



________________________________________________________________
Speed up your surfing with Juno SpeedBand.
Now includes pop-up blocker!
Only $14.95/ month - visit http://www.juno.com/surf to sign up today!