[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Stenopelix valdensis
thanks for the explanation. I think a restudy of the type specimen in
Goettingen would be useful and a new postive cast (since only moulds of the
bones are present) would eventually also bring new light into the story. I
don't know if Sullivan did this or has ever seen the specimen itself. By the
way, what are the autapomorphies of Stenopelix?
Best wishes from Switzerland,
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Datum: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 20:41:41 +0000
Von: Michael Mortimer <email@example.com>
Betreff: RE: Stenopelix valdensis
> Michael Lange wrote-
> >I heard that Sullivan has recently made Stenopelix an Ornithischia indet.
> >I've seen the specimen >myself some years ago on display at the small
> >Geological Museum in Goettingen. The skull is not >present, but should
> >been preserved when the quarry workers found the skeleton (when I >recall
> >correctly). Still, its a nice and interesting specimen. What are the
> >reasons why Sullivan says >its no Marginocephalian anymore.
> Because few pachycephalosaurs preserve good postcrania, so he's far too
> cautious about referring postcrania to the clade (if he can't prove that
> most pachycephalosaurs had a trait, he considers the trait 'weak').
> Also he questioned the absence of pachycephalosaur postcranial
> synapomorphies in outgroups, with no examples to show why he questions it.
> Finally, he likes Coombs (1979) outdated idea of pachycephalosaurs being
> ankylosaur sister group better, and Stenopelix lacks a pelvic character
> those two clades share. Needless to say, Yinlong nicely blows that
> relationship out of the water.
> So basically Sullivan's reasons are worthless and should not be given any
> Mickey Mortimer
Der GMX SmartSurfer hilft bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten zu sparen!
Ideal für Modem und ISDN: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/smartsurfer