[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Tree trunks (was RE: Bruhathkayosaurus matelyi?)
Mickey Mortimer wrote:
Chatterjee told me that Bruhathkayosaurus was a titanosaur as well, so Ford
has nothing to do with the issue.
Until this is actually published, it's still just "he-said/she-said". It
doesn't matter if the secondary source is you or Ford.
Tom Holtz wrote:
To be fair: not all units are the Dinosaur Park or the Djadokhta. In some
preservation is really,
really, really crappy. You might get all sorts of authigenic growth on the
fossils, or alteration of
the original material. In outcrops like that, it isn't out of the question
to be fooled into thinking bone is wood and vice versa, especially from
simple surficial appearances.
All true. And it's happened before (e.g., _Aachenosaurus_). However, this
does not detract from the fact that the original description of
_Bruhathkayosaurus_ is rather unhelpful. Unlike _Aachenosaurus_ (=
petrified wood fragments mistaken for pieces of jaw), __Bruhathkayosaurus_
is described from a partial skeleton. If the preservation is so bad that an
ilium and limb elements can be mistaken for parts of a tree trunk (or vice
versa), you have to wonder if the creature really deserved to be named in
the first place.
Get free, personalized commercial-free online radio with MSN Radio powered
by Pandora http://radio.msn.com/?icid=T002MSN03A07001