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

RE: SVP Abstracts 2006 pdf

Jaime Headden wrote:

Although I disagree with Carr's points as they were raised in the abstract, but
it would be nice to see the rest of the data.

Indeed. Which is why I was treading on eggshells when I first alluded to this. Given that the Abstract is in the public domain, and with the caveat that an in-depth dissection of the claim in question is pointless without seeing the pertinent data, it's probably worth grabbing this tiger by the tail. Carr argues that _Guanlong_ is not in fact a tyrannosauroid, but a carnosaur most closely related to (and perhaps the same as) _Monolophosaurus_.

Just some background... Zhao and Currie (1993) noted the fused nasals and enlarged antorbital fossa of _Monolophosaurus_ ; I wonder just how many cranial characters are functionally correlated with the development of a large, median, pneumatic crest. Also, Xu et al. (2006) compared _Guanlong_ to _Monolophosaurus_ in the Supp. Info., and explicitly rejected a close relationship. If someone had told me that _Monolophosaurus_ might be the same as another Jurassic theropod, I would have put my money on _Xuanhanosaurus_, not _Guanlong_. Time will tell.