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

RE: Bruhathkayosaurus matelyi?

Tim Williams wrote-

By the way, Chatterjee himself supposedly confirmed that B. matelyi was a sauropod.


Tracy Ford is an awfully nice fellow, but I would prefer to see something more concrete (like a publication). However, I'm not disputing the possibility that _Bruhathkayosaurus_ is a titanosaur. I just like to see a detailed description to this effect, and not rely on what's on the grapevine.

The thing is, a titanosaur of this size would be a momentous dicovery. The __Bruhathkayosaurus_ issue reminds me of another contentious Indian taxon, _Dravidosaurus_. This has gone from being a stegosaur to a plesiosaur to a stegosaur (again).

Chatterjee told me that Bruhathkayosaurus was a titanosaur as well, so Ford has nothing to do with the issue.

I wouldn't say Dravidosaurus has gone back to being a stegosaur. Chatterjee and Rudra (1996) actually saw the material to decide it was a plesiosaur, while Galton and Upchurch (2004) don't provide any evidence against the formers' hypothesis. They just say the skull and plates are "certainly not plesiosaurian". But if Chatterjee and Rudra are correct, the skull and plates are presumedly not correctly identified anatomically.

Mickey Mortimer