[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: II CLPV talk summaries: Day 2
Scott Hartman wrote-
Sterling Nesbitt gave one of my favorite talks of the conference. He
showed that Shuvosaurus is not an ornithomimid (no real surprise there),
but is rather a derived suchian. And he demonstrated this pretty
convincingly, since he has a number of specimens with post crania
conveniently attached to skulls.
Interesting. Rauhut (1997) wrote-
"Shuvosaurus differs from rauisuchians and other basal crurotarsans in the
following characters: loss of the postfrontal, paroccipital process directed
ventro-laterally, lacrimal dorso-ventrally elongated, inverted L-shaped and
exposed on the skull roof, presence of a deep basisphenoid recess, and
ectopterygoid with expanded medial part and deep ventral fossa. All of these
characters are found in theropods, and the latter three probably represent
synapomorphies for this group (Gauthier 1986); therefore, Shuvosaurus can be
referred to the Theropoda."
But if we have postcrania...
Randall Irmis was up next, and picked up where Sterling left off; they feel
that a lot of North American Triassic dinosaurs aren?t and made a pretty
convincing argument for it. A (non-comprehensive) list includes
Eucoelophysis, which they feel pretty strongly is a silesaurid.
Ack. This is pretty scary considering most paleontologists would have had
no problems sinking Eucoelophysis into Coelophysis, and probably E. baldwini
into C. bauri. Makes one wonder about all those other fragmentary
Gojirosaurus they feel is a chimera (Ken, want to comment?), made up of
theropod material and Shuvosaurus (or shuvosaur-like suchian) material.
Well, the tooth isn't shuvosaurid (though the edentulous premaxilla found
nearby probably is). The dorsal vertebrae have hyposphenes, so should be
saurischian. The scapula and tibia are very similar to Liliensternus.
Surely shuvosaurids haven't developed theropod-like pubes too?
He did note the similarity to Silesaurus, but rather than concluding that
his new animal(s) are not dinosaurs, he inferred that Silesaurus is itself
a basal ornithischian.
Wouldn't it be funny if what we had here was the return of dinosaurian
Theropods from shuvosaurid suchians...
Sauropodomorphs from Azhendohsaurus-like basal archosaurs...
Ornithischians from silesaurid 'avemetatarsalians'...