[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Apatosaurus: Follow up
I have alot of the relevant refs available as pdfs if
you need them, including Wilson, 1999, but also
Wedel's slight alterations. I don't have upchurch et
al's 2004 monograph though.
--- Mike Taylor <email@example.com> wrote:
> > Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 08:57:49 -0700 (PDT)
> > From: Mike Limonite <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > While searching the web for a a site that would
> give me the correct
> > names for the different parts of a sauropods
> vertebrae I came across
> > DML posts from 2004 which had mentioned alot of
> the material that
> > was in my post making mine for the most part
> redundant (and looking
> > back at the Gilmore Monograph some of the
> information I gave was
> > incorrect). However, I still have a couple
> Hi, Mike, nice to see some sauropod discussion
> on-list. Regarding the
> name so the laminae, the definitive paper is Wilson
> 1999, which
> established the system that's been used all but
> universally since
> Wilson, Jeffrey A. 1999. A nomenclature for
> laminae in sauropods and other saurischian
> dinosaurs. Journal
> of Vertebrate Palaeontology 19(4): 639-653.
> Not to steal Wilson's thunder, but the system is
> astonishingly simple, once you get over the long
> names. (Which is
> really the point of the system, and the reason it's
> caught on.) Each
> lamina is just named after the two things it joins.
> Spine up on top,
> centrum down below, pre- and post-zygs at the front
> and back, and
> diapophysis and parapophysis sticking out the sides.
> So if you have a
> lamina joining (say) the prezyg and the diapophysis,
> it's a
> prezygadiapophyseal lamina (or PRDL for short). If
> you have a lamine
> below the postzyg (i.e. connecting it with the
> centrum), it's a
> centropostzygapophyseal lamina (CPOL). And so on.
> Anything that
> doesn't fit into that scheme is just labelled and
> "acessory lamina"
> and swept under the carpet :-)
> Second thing: if you're interested in detailed
> morphology and species-identity issues, then you
> _must_ get the new
> Upchurch et al. 2005 monograph, which is state of
> the art on that
> taxon. It's a marvellous piece of work in every
> way: ferociously
> detailed, meticulously referenced and (not least)
> Upchurch, Paul, Yukimitsu Tomida, and Paul M.
> Barrett. 2004.
> A new specimen of _Apatosaurus ajax_ (Sauropoda:
> from the Morrison Formation (Upper Jurassic) of
> Wyoming, USA.
> National Science Museum Monographs No.26. Tokyo.
> > Also the significance of anterior projections on
> the cervical ribs
> > of _Apatosaurus_ specimens in classifying them has
> been undermined.
> "Undermined" as in "wiped out" :-)
> > However, the anterior projections seen on _A.
> excelsus_ and _A.
> > ajax_ cervicals would offer a different muscle
> attachment point than
> > the ventral processes seen in _A. louisae_ and
> some _A. ajax_ and
> > _A. excelsus_ cervicals, unless anterior
> projections grow from these
> > ventral processes as the animal grows wouldn't _A.
> louisae_ have a
> > completely different muscle structure than CM 563?
> Which would also
> > mean that CM 563 and YPM 1980, even being of the
> same species
> > (_A. excesus_) had noticeable differences in
> cervical muscles?
> That seems extremely unlikely, as the presence and
> absence of anterior
> projections from the cervical ribs seems to vary
> along all sorts of
> axes, e.g. ontogenetic or even along the neck of an
> individual. More
> likely, the muscle attachment sites are homologous
> in all cases; just
> very hard to spot :-)
> /o ) \/ Mike Taylor <email@example.com>
> )_v__/\ "One hour of life, crowded to the full with
> glorious action,
> and filled with noble risks, is worth whole years
> of those mean
> observances of paltry decorum" -- Sir Walter
> Listen to free demos of soundtrack music for film,
> TV and radio
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail