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

RE: Expanding the Known Oviraptoverse

  This might be interestingly possible to test with current material. Mickey 
Mortimer has made the argument that *Kuszholia mengi* Nessov, 1992, a small 
maniraptoran based on a tiny synsacrum (PO 4602, with additional vertebrae 
referred), is an oviraptorosaur due to general similarities. Deriving from the 
Bissekty Formation, the obvious correlation with *Caenagnathasia martinsoni* is 
obvious, and useful. The Bissekty at several sites has produced a wealth of 
small avian or avian-esque bones that could very well apply to a small-bodied, 
*Caudipteryx*-like oviraptorsaur, and if these are consistent, they may qualify 
a single taxon. Only more complete material can demonstrate this, but this 
allows us a fresh perspective from which to examine the collected material.

  I have no other opinion on the issue of potential synonymy, as I have not 
read the paper, seen the material, etc. I will leave further discussion of this 
issue when I take Mickey to task for even suggesting the novel, useful, and 
intriguing idea.

Nessov, L. A. 1992. Review of localities and remains of Mesozoic 
  and Paleogene birds of the USSR and the description of new findings. _Ruskii 
  Ornitologicheskii Zhurnal_ 1(1):7-50. [I'm copy-pasting the ref with 
modifications from Mickey's Theropod Database -- here: 


  Jaime A. Headden
  The Bite Stuff (site v2)

"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 

> Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 12:59:03 +1000
> From: tijawi@gmail.com
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: Re: Expanding the Known Oviraptoverse
> Jaime Headden <qi_leong@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Yes ... but the name is clearly formed as *Ojoraptorsaurus*. No conjoining 
> > vowel. While the intention may have been to "modify" "Oviraptorosauria," 
> > the effective function was to combine Ojo + raptor +
> > saurus: Ojo [Alamo Formation] plunderer lizard. I would have prefered 
> > "Placenameasaurus" in this case, or at least gone with a trend and tried 
> > "Ojoraptor." A jolly little thief, rather.
> For some reason, in defiance of ancient Greek practice, conjoining
> vowels are apparently optional (_Sinraptor_, _Gigantspinosaurus_,
> _Ojoraptorsaurus_, etc). Homer would be horrified. (The poet, not
> the Simpson.)
> Lest this post be nothing more than a bitch about nomenclature, I
> hasten to add that I can understand why Jaime has such an obsession
> with oviraptorosaurs. They really were/are fascinating animals.
> Although these two fossils don't add a great deal to the
> Oviraptoverse, this is a group that is extremely diverse, and includes
> a range of taxa from tiny _Caenagnathasia_ to the massive
> _Gigantoraptor_. I only wish we had more than just jawbones for
> _Caenagnathasia_ (and since these appear to have been lost, we don't
> even have these anymore). I'd really like to know if this little
> maniraptoran shows any scansorial/arboreal adaptations similar to
> _Microraptor_ or _Epidendrosaurus_.
> Cheers
> Tim