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

RE: Pterosaur.net



Tim Williams wrote-

> _Aidachar_ and _Sultanuvaisia_ are fish aren't they?
>
> Nesov initially mistook the fossils for pterosaurs, but subsequently 
> corrected his own mistakes and realized they were fish (teleosts).

That's basically all the information I had on them, though now that I check I 
do have a pdf of their original description (Nessov, 1981) in English.  But of 
course, I'm not a pterosaur expert and certainly unfamiliar with fish bones, so 
it means little to me.  Recall Asiamericana was a similar case, where Nessov 
(1995) thought teeth were either a spinosaurid or fish.  Turns out they were 
Richardoestesia 
(http://home.comcast.net/~eoraptor/Dromaeosaurs.htm#Richardoestesiaasiatica).  
Note that for my entry on it, I had to correlate several papers, and even 
consulted another theropod expert privately.  This would be very time consuming 
and difficult for the general pulic to do, and is the exact kind of thing I 
would enjoy seeing handled on Pterosaur.net for Aidachar and Sultanuvaisia.  
And with their talented artists, they could even have an illustration of the 
holotype jaw material compared to a pterosaur and whatever fish family they are 
similar to.  I don't trust Nessov's opinions on them, even if I did have his 
1986 paper reassigning them to fish.  His Asiahesperornis is probably 
Hesperornis, his Enantiornis and Ichthyornis species are not in those genera, 
Troodon isfarensis is part of a hadrosaur, his Turanoceratops braincase belongs 
to a sauropod.  I would much rather see a pterosaur expert's opinion, backed up 
with the anatomical reasons for whichever assignment they support.  The 
popularity of Darren Naish's blog, with its technical writing and references, 
shows the public enjoys this level of detail as much as the experts do.
 
Mickey Mortimer
The Theropod Database- http://home.comcast.net/~eoraptor/Home.html