[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)



Niall Mateer 1976. New topotypes of Alamosaurus sanjuanensis Gilmore
(Reptilia: Sauropoda). Bulletin of the Geological Intitutions of the
University of Uppsala. NS 6:93-95. Described a partial ilium and sacrum
collected by C Sternberg "from the same locality as Gilmore's type
specimen..."

Kenneth Carpenter, Ph.D. 
Curator of Lower Vertebrate Paleontology 
and Chief Preparator 
Department of Earth Sciences 
Denver Museum of Nature & Science 
2001 Colorado Blvd. 
Denver, CO 80205 USA

Ken.Carpenter@DMNS.org
ph: 303-370-6392/ or 6403 
fx: 303-331-6492 

for PDFs of my reprints, info about the Cedar Mtn. Project, etc. see:
https://scientists.dmns.org/sites/kencarpenter/default.aspx
for fun, see also:
http://dino.lm.com/artists/display.php?name=Kcarpenter



 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu [mailto:owner-dinosaur@usc.edu] 
> On Behalf Of Denver Fowler
> Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 9:56 AM
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: 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
>