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

["Jaime A. Headden" <qilongia@yahoo.com>]

Danver Fowler (df9465@yahoo.co.uk) wrote:

<Well now, that's not very nice. As it happens, 'Alamosaurus' was very large
indeed, even for a sauropod. 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.>

  And remembering the caution by Denver on the list last night, should we
really be calling this *Alamosaurus* so quickly? Is it possible it can come
from another large titanosaur? Is it possible that, in fact, there were a
number of titanosaurs from the Late Cretaceous of North America and that, in
this, the original *A. sanjuanensis* material is merely the only named one of
these forms?

  Cheers,

Jaime A. Headden

"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com