[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Vitakridrinda update
Wilson et al. 2011 (on _Jainosaurus_, Palaeontology 54:981-988) listed
_Vitakridrinda_ as "not valid" in their table of named India/Pakistan
dinosaurs, but with no further comments.
> Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 17:54:47 -0800
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Vitakridrinda update
> Brad McFeeters wrote- "Has the hypothesis of it being a non-fossil rock made
> it into the literature yet?"
> I don't even know if anyone except Malkani has commented on Vitakridrinda in
> the literature. Carrano and Sampson (2007) list it as an unconfirmed
> ceratosaur, and incorrectly cite the 2006b snout paper as the reference for
> it. Molnar (pers. comm.) informs me Wilson has information on its identity,
> and that it is a fossil, but not of what Malkani described it as. I've
> emailed Wilson and will report back with his response if I'm allowed.