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

Re: Torosaurus NOT Triceratops--? resent




re sent plain...

----------------------------------
Denver Fowler
df9465@yahoo.co.uk
http://www.denverfowler.com
-----------------------------------

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Denver Fowler <df9465@yahoo.co.uk>
To: "dinosaur@usc.edu" <dinosaur@usc.edu> 
Sent: Wednesday, 29 February 2012, 22:07
Subject: Re: Torosaurus NOT Triceratops--?




>Agreed. I raised the issue at the original Scanella Bristol talk that we
should check the postcrania of large individuals of both morphs for EFS,
and this has either not been done or not been published.

Trike skulls with associated postcrania are actually pretty rare, but there 

are some that are being histologically examined. John (Scannella) has a 

huge pile on his plate with all the specimens that we have been collecting. 

Rest assured, the Longrich paper is no challenge to the Trike-toro hypothesis, 

but I think it does illustrate the need for us t get the new specimens and 
approach 

out there. The strat paper is going out soon.

>Furthermore, this idea that maximum body length of individuals is somehow
taxonomically significant really has to go. We know that many taxa have
variable maximum body size of individuals, so having some subadults bigger
than adult individuals isn't rare.

Body size (one genuine aspect of individual variation) is a big question mark. 
However, 

we can narrow down the issue by first pulling out the stratigraphic and 
ontogenetic signals. 

Obviously I'm biased towards strat, but this data is absolutely essential, and 
Longrich's study 

doesn't have it. Sadly, it's time to put away these historical collections 
because without data, 

like Raptorex, they're morphologies without context, and not much use other 
than to 

provoke false positives like this study.