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

Re: L. laticaudus



Thanks.

>>"I do not remember what the paper says about the LACM specimen you refer to."

The 1981 paper just says ""?L. laticaudus, for example, attained lengths of 
16.5 m, and weights of 23 tons (Morris, 1972)." 

But that 1972 paper says, "Based on the computation by Colbert (1962) of about 
4 metric tons for Corythosaurus sp., LACM 26757 would have weighed close to 23 
metric tons." 

The problem is that the 1981 paper refers LACM 17712, LACM 20874, LACM 17705, 
LACM 17706,LACM 20876, left tibia; LACM
17711 LACM 17704, LACM 28990, LACM 17702 to the species (LACM 17715 being the 
type specimen). LACM 26757 isn't mentioned in the paper at all. So we have a 
size estimate for L. laticaudus that's based on a specimen never actually 
assigned to L. laticaudus!

>> "In my paper on Velafrons, I rejected the name Lambeosaurus because there 
>> was no reason at all to call it that genus, absolutely no autapomorphy was 
>> given to support the assignment. As for the species, many differnt 
>> lamebosaurines have tall broadened tails, again, not an autapomorphy. So by 
>> my consideration, this taxon is undiagnosible."

Is the specimen a nomen dubium based on Morris' description, or based on the 
bones themselves? That is, clearly Morris' description doesn't provide 
sufficient justification to assign it to a genus -- but that doesn't 
necessarily mean the specimen itself too poor to support a genus assignment. 

(Where is the specimen, anyway? Morris 1981 says:
  "Although all specimens collected are now at the Museum of Natural History, 
Los Angeles County, they will shortly be returned to Mexico, for they are 
considered to be the property of the Federal Government of Mexico, as 
stipulated in original agreements allowing us permission to collect and study 
these fossils. At the present time the final disposition of the specimens is 
not known." (though he suggests two museums they might end up in)

Did they get given back to Mexico & in that case where are they now? Morris 
does however say "Copies of the catalogued specimens are registered at these 
two institutions as well as at the Museum of Natural History, Los Angeles 
County." -- so there might at least be casts still there.)

>> "If you have more information there are several places to publish the 
>> information. If the paper is short "Notes" within journals is a good 
>> starting place."

I don't have answers, just questions...




----- Original Message -----
From: "Terry Gates" <terryagates@gmail.com>
To: vultur-10@neo.tamu.edu
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 4:38:34 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: L. laticaudus


Hello. I have not read the Morris papers for years, and they in fact packed 
away in my files somewhere. I do not remember what the paper says about the 
LACM specimen you refer to. However, it is possible that the postcrania from 
that specimen and "L. laticaudus" are the same, but also possible they are 
different. In my paper on Velafrons, I rejected the name Lambeosaurus because 
there was no reason at all to call it that genus, absolutely no autapomorphy 
was given to support the assignment. As for the species, many differnt 
lamebosaurines have tall broadened tails, again, not an autapomorphy. So by my 
consideration, this taxon is undiagnosible. If you have more information there 
are several places to publish the information. If the paper is short "Notes" 
within journals is a good starting place. For more comments you might want to 
contact David Evans at the ROM. He is an expert on all things lambeosaurine. 
Good Luck. 

Bucky Gates