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

Re: Pterosaur Ichnogenera (for completenesses sake...)?



Thanks, Mike! I've got Avgodectes, so that was not a problem. Thanks for 
alerting me to Oolithes. Just curious, why is its attribution to a pterosaur no 
longer accepted?

Thanks,

~Abyssal


--- On Sat, 1/17/09, Mike Hanson <mhanson54@comcast.net> wrote:

> From: Mike Hanson <mhanson54@comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: Pterosaur Ichnogenera (for completenesses sake...)?
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Date: Saturday, January 17, 2009, 12:20 AM
> My list contains all ichnotaxa thus far named that are
> considered pterosaurian or which were once considered
> pterosaurian
> 
> So far there are no oötaxa named, though Dave Peters did
> end up assigning a certain name to the embryo within an egg.
> By the looks of it the name seems to be valid too, though it
> does push the limits of what can be considered valid, and
> what is not an oötaxon.
> 
> As a side note, the holotype of Oolithes sphaericus was
> apparently considered pterosaurian by Seeley, but this was
> before the name was given to the specimen, so it doesn't
> count.
> 
> Saint Abyssal wrote:
> > I know we have some good pterosaur egg fossils but I
> haven't heard of any actual oogenera being erected to
> hold them. Have any? If so what are they called? Google
> hasn't been kind to my inquiries, and I don't recall
> encountering names in Unwin's book. 
> >
> > Include references if you have them, some of
> Bennet's bibliography's papers mention eggs, but
> none mention the erection of ootaxa so I'd have no way
> to ascertain references just by searching the page for the
> genus name.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > ~Abyssal
> >
> >
> >       
> >
> >