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

RE: Thoughts on Tanycolagreus

Jaime Headden wrote:

Carpenter et al. describe the premaxilla as short and deep, and comparing well enough with a premaxilla referred to *Stokesosaurus clevelandi* that they referred the bone as a paratype of *T. topwilsoni* (UUVP 7821), leaving *S. clevelandi* represented by ilia, an inschium, caudal vertebrae, and a partial braincase.

I'm not 100% certain that any of these elements actually belong to a single taxon. The ilium (type) and braincase both look tyrannosaurid-like, so it would make sense for them to belong in the same taxon. However, none of the _Stokesosaurus_ elements were found associated. Thus, there is no evidence that the caudals referred to _Stokesosaurus_ actually come from this species. AFAIK they were referred to _Stokesosaurus_ somewhat arbitrarily.

Further data would arrive in the form of a more indepth analysis and inclusion of *T. topwilsoni* into a cladistic analysis, such as Holtz' latest monster, and the presence of two tyrannosauroids in the Morrison Formation may argue that *S. clevelandi* and *T. topwilsoni* are synonyms, yet the only comparable material so far are caudal vertebrae.

My copy of the new theropod volume is still in transit, so maybe this is covered, but... if the caudals of _Stokesosaurus_ do resemble those of _Tanycolagreus_, then maybe they actually belong to _Tanycolagreus_. After all, this is what happened with the premaxilla.