[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Richardostesia teeth
Jaime A. Headden wrote-
Michael Mortimer (email@example.com) wrote:
<Because they both have very tiny serrations. So does Nuthetes, which I
believe falls into the range of Richardoestesia morphotypes.>
It is not so much the size of the serrae as the shape of the serrae,
low, and nearly quandrangular, along with size distribution along the
The shapes oft he teeth are also very coincident, with all teeth attributed
this genus being relatively straight with minimal recurvature. The *R.
isoceles* teeth are just less recurved and in fact less recumbent than the
teeth attributed to *R. gilmorei*.
Denticle shape is not uniform/distinct in the genus, as noted by Sankey et
al. (2002) for R. gilmorei- "Denticle tips can be slightly pointed, rounded,
or flattened." While she describes R. isosceles as- "Denticle tips are
straight or slightly rounded, but not pointed."
Similarly, all teeth referred to Richardoestesia are not relatively
straight. Again, describing R. gilmorei- "Isolated teeth vary in curvature
from almost completely straight (0.1 mm curvature) to strongly recurved (0.7
The denticle size distribution along the carinae for R. gilmorei ("Denticle
size varies slightly along the carinae, with smaller ones at the base and
tip.") is not distinct from Saurornitholestes ("Denticle size varies along
the carina, they tend to be smaller at the base and tip of teeth."). R.
isosceles has a different size distribution though- "Posterior denticles are
... uniformly-sized along tooth,"
Indeed, Sankey later states "Richardoestesia isosceles is included in the
because of the presence of small denticles. However, the shape of the
denticles in Richardoestesia gilmorei and isosceles is different."