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

Re: taxonomy is not stratigraphy (was Re: JVP 25(2): New Dinos, Birds, Discoveries)

Denver Fowler wrote:

I searched for "Fowler" in the SVP 2004 abstracts PDF, but I couldn't
find the abstract for your talk.  Is it available?

Not an abstract, just me and my laptop. Inference is
based on some new material. can't say anymore other
than it is really big.

Can you say if it is (a) really _Alamosaurus_; or (b) co-existed with _Tyrannosaurus_?

I would go so far as to say 'Alamosaurus' may have been the biggest North American sauropod ever (my claim from SVP2004), certainly it gave all the morrison sauropods a run for their money.

Wow. Like Mike, I find this snippet very tantalizing. When one talks about Morrison sauropods, you're really in the big leagues: _Amphicoelias_, _Supersaurus_ (?=_Barosaurus_), _Seismosaurus (?=_Diplodocus_), _Brachiosaurus_. To be the "biggest North American sauropod ever" is quite a feat. My apologies to _Alamosaurus_.

Diplodocids were long, but not very heavy for their length; _Brachiosaurus_ was heavy, but not very long. Titanosaurs were heavyset like brachiosaurs, but tend to have much shorter necks and tails than diplodocids. A better yardstick might be to compare this new _Alamosaurus_ material with a big-ass titanosaur like _Argentinosaurus_ or _Pelligrinisaurus_. AFAIK, there are no Morrison titanosaurs (unless _"Apatosaurus" minimus" is one).