[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: No new thyreophorans for 2010?!?
It appears to be the same as the list I compiled, except I disagree with their
inclusion of *Psittacosaurus gobiensis.* True, the paper describing *P.
gobiensis* is dated January 22, 2010, but the same issue of Proceedings also
contains descriptions of *Beishanlong,* *Tianyulong,* *Xiongguanlong,* etc.- so
why is only *P. gobiensis* listed as having been published in 2010? I have
heard that people did receive their printed copies of this issue before the end
of 2009, so the cover date is not accurate.
I think the following enantiornithean birds also qualify for the 2010 list,
contra Wikipedia. The issue of Irish Journal of Earth Sciences they are
published in is dated 2009, but in the paper it says, "Received 26 August 2009,
Accepted 11 January 2010".
*Elbretornis bonapartei* Walker & Dyke
*Martinavis minor* Walker & Dyke
*Martinavis saltariensis* Walker & Dyke
*Martinavis whetstonei* Walker & Dyke
> Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 23:14:46 +0100
> From: email@example.com
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
> Subject: Re: No new thyreophorans for 2010?!?
> > I've been thinking about the new dinosaurs named this year, and cannot
> > recall a new thyreophoran. Is this correct?
> If this list is exhaustive, then yes:o)
> Daniel Madzia
> web: www.wildprehistory.org
> mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
> skype: danielmadzia