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

Re: Amazing Tendaguru and the most prolific localities in the world

Mike Taylor wrote:

At this stage, I would welcome a contribution from someone who knows
what they're talking about :-)

Hey, don't look at me. I just BS, and hope somebody takes me seriously. :-)

> The femur from SII is incomplete.

Yes.  I've seen it described as such many times, but never read any
detailed statement of what the damage is and how it affects the
measurable length.

Maybe Heinrich (1999) can help out, in lieu of finding Janensch's original paper. The cartoon of the arrangement of the SII elements in the field may provide a loose guide to how much of the femur was intact.

Interestingly, some of the brachiosaur limb elements are preserved in such a manner that suggests that the animals were mired in the mud, and died where they stood!

(BTW., I seem to
recall reading somewhere that the more recent _Dicraeosaurus_, may be
more closely related to _Amargasaurus_ than to its apparent ancestor
_D. hansemanni_.  I don't recall the details, though.)

Yep, you are absolutely correct. This is from Salgado (1999) - although he does not actually erect the new combination _Amargasaurus sattleri_.

Salgado, L.( 1999). The macroevolution of the Diplodocimorpha (Dinosauria; Sauropoda): a developmental model. Ameghiniana 36: 203-216.

However, now that I check my Russell et al. 1980, I see that their
Table II (page 171) shows (from oldest to youngest) one
_Brachiosaurus_ individual known from the "Base, Middle Saurian Bed",
26 from the Middle Saurian Bed, three from the Lower Transitional
Sands, four from the the Upper Transitional Sands and ... [drum-roll]
NONE from the Upper Saurian Bed.  That is of course in conflict with,
for example, Christian and Heinrich's (1998)

I would think it would also contradict Janensch's work!