[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)



--- Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com> wrote:

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

It's not possible to say that any sauropod material is
'alamosaurus' because the holotype is not diagnostic:
a single scapula. For Alamosaurus read 'titanosaur
material found in the late K of North America Utah and
southwards'.

and large tyrannosaurids are known from the same
strata. Tyrannosaurus? that's what we've been debating
right?



 
> 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_.  



> 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).

Comparisons can be made anywhere you like. I've seen
really big 'supersaurus', and 'seismosaurus' material
personally, so can vouch for how big those animals
were. pretty much all (although obviously not all)
titanosaur material I have seen has been early
cretaceous of the UK, and not that big.

Denver 


> 
> Cheers
> 
> Tim
> 
> 
> 



                
___________________________________________________________ 
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday 
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com