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

Re: New Chinese coelophysid (unnamed) photos



It seems to me that if we measure the lenght from the preserved tip
from the snout to the craniomandibular articulation, it is longer than
the lenght from the mentioned articulation to the tip of the mandible,
and this may suggest the mandible is lacking a piece already. However,
it also appears that just cranial to the orbit, at the level of the
antorbital fenestra, the snout may have broken and displaced, and thus
explain the difference in lenght.

2010/10/11 Dan Chure <danchure@easilink.com>:
>  Where's the fun in that?
>
> Dan
>
> On 10/11/2010 8:09 AM, William Parker wrote:
>>
>> Seems we'll simply have to (to quote Tom Holtz)  "wait for the paper".
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Jaime Headden<qi_leong@hotmail.com>
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree with Mickey that the skull appears to be preserved to the tip,
>>> due to the mandible's preservation (or that they are equally truncated, then
>>> separated in post mortem position). However, the preservation of the
>>> material (and possibly the incomplete preparation) makes assessing the
>>> morphology of the snout difficult; I cannot even see a distinct margin for
>>> the external naris, much less the shape of the premaxilla.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Jaime A. Headden
>>> The Bite Stuff (site v2)
>>> http://qilong.wordpress.com/
>>>
>>> "Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)
>>>
>>>
>>> "Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a
>>> different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race
>>> has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or
>>> his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a
>>> Billion Backs)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 15:59:27 -0700
>>>> From: mickey_mortimer111@msn.com
>>>> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
>>>> Subject: RE: New Chinese coelophysid (unnamed) photos
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Augusto Haro wrote-
>>>>
>>>>> It seems to me that the premaxilla is not preserved...
>>>>
>>>> I considered that possibility, but it seems odd that the mandible would
>>>> also have its anterior end unpreserved, especially since the mandible is
>>>> perpendicular to the skull.  Could be true though, and in that case I
>>>> wouldn't have an issue with the specimen being coelophysoid.
>>>>
>>>> Mickey Mortimer
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>