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

RE: Gargantuavis a bird, not a pterosaur



Unutterably unoviraptorosaurian? Goodness. Those are strong, bewildering,
words.


I have never looked at any of the material nor researched this, but I do
see some superficial similarities in the pelvis and femur of Nothronychus.
The number of sacral vertebrae is said to be lower in the latter, but
don't several maniraptoran families show trends towards larger numbers of
sacral vertebrae?

I am not suggesting that Gargantuavis was a therizinosaur, but it was
described in 1998 and I wonder if  its apomorphies have been analyzed and
compared to the more recently described therizinosaurs and
oviraptorosaurs, to exclude that possibility.

In other words, Buffetaut has just rebuffed the possibility that it is a
pterosaur, but I'd almost think that advanced therizinosaurs are the more
likely candidate for possible confusion and convergence.





>
>   The sacrum is TOTALLY different. I could spend a little time detailing
> this, or you can take my preliminary word for it. But suffice it to say,
> the sacrum of Gargant possesses a large degree of unutterably
> unoviraptorosaurian features, epsecially in the sacral ribs and the shape
> and form of the centra and zygapophyses that make it extremely different
> from virtually any nonavian maniraptoran.
>
> 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: Mon, 4 Jul 2011 12:40:03 -0400
>> From: jaseb@amnh.org
>> To: bh480@scn.org
>> CC: dinosaur@usc.edu
>> Subject: Re: Gargantuavis a bird, not a pterosaur
>>
>> Does anyone know off hand what excludes the possibility that
>> Gargantuavis
>> was an oviraptorosaur?
>>
>>
>>
>> > From: Ben Creisler
>> > bh480@scn.org
>> >
>> > A new online article:
>> >
>> > Eric Buffetaut and Jean Le Loeuff (2011)
>> > Gargantuavis philoinos: Giant bird or giant pterosaur?
>> > Annales de Paléontologie (advance online publication)
>> > doi:10.1016/j.annpal.2011.05.002
>> > http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0753396911000061
>> >
>> > Gargantuavis philoinos was described as a giant terrestrial bird on
>> the
>> > basis of various postcranial elements (synsacrum and pelvis, femur)
>> from
>> > Late Cretaceous (Campanian-Maastrichtian) localities in Southern
>> France.
>> > It
>> > has recently been suggested that these remains in fact belong to giant
>> > pterosaurs. A detailed comparison between bones referred to
>> Gargantuavis
>> > and the corresponding skeletal elements of pterosaurs reveals
>> considerable
>> > differences and confirms the avian nature of Gargantuavis. The broad
>> > pelvis
>> > of Gargantuavis is similar to that of various extinct graviportal
>> > terrestrial birds.
>> >
>> >
>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > mail2web.com - Microsoft® Exchange solutions from a leading provider -
>> > http://link.mail2web.com/Business/Exchange
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> Jason Brougham
>> Senior Principal Preparator
>> Department of Exhibition
>> American Museum of Natural History
>> 81st Street at Central Park West
>> 212 496 3544
>> jaseb@amnh.org
>>
>


Jason Brougham
Senior Principal Preparator
Department of Exhibition
American Museum of Natural History
81st Street at Central Park West
212 496 3544
jaseb@amnh.org