David Peters | 1 Nov 2002 02:15
Picon
Favicon

Sinopterus cladistically

Don't know what else was posted today. I only get the archives the day
after. So forgive me if I repeat anyone's post.

Sinopterus should be judged on more characters than I was able to see
using the low-resolutiion image available on the 'net. But at present it
pops up basal to the Pteranodon/Nyctosaurus clade. Move it over to the
base of the Tapejaridae and it only costs one more step ~ but remember
the resolution problem. It's like working with blurry glasses.

Those long legs are a dsungaripterid character -- the basal stock. The
overbite is interesting. Wish I could see the tail. If those sclerotic
rings(?) are real, they're enormous and hard to believe. All in all, it
looks like a great transitional pterosaur. Pass on the reference when
more is available.

And thanks for the sneak preview!

David Peters

Jaime A. Headden | 1 Nov 2002 02:47
Picon
Favicon

Re: Sinopterus cladistically

David Peters (davidrpeters <at> earthlink.net) wrote:

<Those long legs are a dsungaripterid character -- the basal stock. The
overbite is interesting. Wish I could see the tail. If those sclerotic
rings(?) are real, they're enormous and hard to believe. All in all, it
looks like a great transitional pterosaur. Pass on the reference when more
is available.>

  From what I have available, a possible *Tupuxuara* skeleton has long
legs and wings that look like this. My personal observation in the
pteranodont lineage, which includes a basal toothy dsungaripterid stock,
developed the long skull first, and shortening progresses to *Tapejara
wellnhoferi*. Consequently, I restore *Tapejara* with long legs and a
relatively short trunk, possibly with an overbite, though the underbite in
*Dsungaripterus* and possibly *Thalassodromeus* may reflect feeding style
and thus length of jaw to skull will have little phylogenetic
significance. The animal appears to resemble in the skull of *Tapejara
imperator* very much, and they may be sister taxa, or closer, with *T.
wellnhoferi* at the end. Might be good to separate *T. imperator* as a new
"taxon" from typic *T. wellnhoferi* so that taxonomic confusion isn't
conflated. I think the orbital area is strongly distorted, as many
temporal elements appear to be broken or loose in the photo. Long legs are
seen convergently in *Pterodaustro* and this may also reflect feeding
styles. Note that long limbs in many bird clades that are waders versus
swimmers or flyers, even closely allied, vary when the ecology is
considered. Food for thought. If anyone has access to the Chinese I would
like to know, I prefer having both references, actually, for as Jerry has
said, the original Chinese of many of the Kexue Tongbao/Chinese Science
Bulletin articles are the proper citation. I have both english and Chinese
*Jinzhousaurus* (iguanodontoid from Jiufotang levels) articles, for
(Continue reading)

Jonathan R. Wagner | 1 Nov 2002 02:52
Picon

Re: How Did Hadrosaurs Survive?

Tim Donovan wrote:

>    With the exception of that Hell Creek lambeosaur recently reported. But
> it was found stratigraphically low, and certainly seems rare, so maybe
> lambeosaurs were essentially gone by the Lancian.
    I have had a chance to discuss this specimen with the authors of that
poster twice. They are good fellas who are doing a responsible job with very
little material, but I can't say they have an open-and-shut case. I'd rather
not discuss my opinion, nor the details in public, since it isn't my work.
Let's just say that IT ISN'T PUBLISHED, therefore IT ISN'T SCIENCE. I
recommend you avoid using this data. And yes, for the record, abstracts,
IMHO, are not really published (they aren't peer-reviewed, you can't name
new taxa in them, etc.). I know there are some cases where an abstract
simply presents small, unequivocal bits of information, and there isn't much
point in ignoring it... this is NOT such a case.

>    It has been known for years that Buffetaut identified an ankylosaur
> specimen from the Wangshi as Pinacosaurus, [...]
       And what was the basis for this identification? As I recall, the
specimen (discussed in the 6th Mesozoic Terrestrial Ecosystems volume) is
the butt-end of a vertebral column originally identified by Wiman as
hadrosaurian. There might be more... I found this reference:

    BUFFETAUT E. (1995): An ankylosaurid dinosaur from the Upper Cretaceous
of Shandong (China). Geol.Mag. 132(6): 683-692

     ...but this appears to be a non-existant paper (!). If you know of
more, I'd very much like to hear of it.

    In any case, have you considered why Buffetaut might have called it
(Continue reading)

MKIRKALDY | 1 Nov 2002 04:12
Picon
Favicon

NSF Tree of Life Project

Here is the press release:

NSF Launches Ambitious Project to Map Tree of Life; Field Museum Plays Key 
Role

CHICAGO, Oct. 31 /PRNewswire/ -- The National Science Foundation has just 
launched a multi-disciplinary, 15-20 year program to map the Tree of Life.

Field Museum scientists will help lead three grants to construct a new 
framework for understanding the evolutionary relationships between all 
species.  They will focus on birds, spiders, and archosaurs (birds, 
dinosaurs, pterosaurs and crocodiles).

Darwin's vision of a grand Tree of Life "with its ever-branching and 
beautiful ramifications" speculated that all life forms are genetically 
related in a vast evolutionary tree. Today, many branches of the Tree of Life 
remain unanalyzed, unknown. The Assembling the Tree of Life project will 
address this, incorporating the flood of new information from genetic 
studies, fieldwork and inventories of the earth's biota with existing 
information.

Evolutionary information has helped scientists focus research; track the 
spread of diseases; develop medicines and agrochemical products; conserve 
species; control invasive species; and restore ecosystems.

"Progress in research in many fields is being encumbered by the lack of a 
rigorous framework of evolutionary relationships," says Shannon Hackett, 
Field Museum assistant curator and AToL investigator. "The tools are now 
available to resolve most branches of the Tree of Life."

(Continue reading)

jonathan.r.wagner | 1 Nov 2002 04:49
Picon

Re: How Did Hadrosaurs Survive?

CORRECTION:

I did manage to find the Geological Magazine paper, through the magic of the 
Langston Library (tm). As it turns out, there IS indeed an ilium associated 
with the specimen. It is referred to Pinacosaurus (which was then considered 
monospecific) on the bases of its widely flaring ilia. Well, I just don't know 
enough about ankylosaurs to say what I think of that, but I certainly wouldn't 
hang a correlation on it.

Anyway, good evening everyone!

:)

Wagner

Robert G. Tuck Jr. | 1 Nov 2002 06:36

Re: NSF Tree of Life Project

I take it that this is entirely separate from David R. and Wayne P.
Maddison's "Tree of Life Web Project" at

http://tolweb.org/tree/phylogeny.html,

which, incidentally, includes pages on the Tyrannosauridae by HP T. Holtz
and the Ankylosauria by HP K. Carpenter.

-= Tuck =-

Mickey Mortimer | 1 Nov 2002 07:47
Picon
Favicon

A critique of Lu et al.'s (2002) Oviraptorosaurs compared to birds

While at SVP, Lu was nice enough to give me a copy of his paper-
Lu, Dong, Azuma, Barsbold and Tomida, 2002. Oviraptorosaurs compared to
birds. in Zhou and Zhang eds., Proceedings of the 5th Symposium of the
Society of Avian Paleontology and Evolution. Beijing Science Press, pg.
175-189.
This is another paper advocating avian oviraptorosaurs, along the lines of
Maryanska et al. 2002.  Unfortunately, it has many of the same problems.
The most important aspect of the paper is the illustration of the skull,
sacrum and partial pelvis of IGM 100/2112, an oviraptorid labeled Ingenia
sp., which looks to me more like Citipati.  Jaime Headden confirmed it was
most similar to IGM 100/42, which has been termed Citipati sp. (though still
called Oviraptor philoceratops by Lu et al.).  It was discovered in the
Nemegt Formation of Mongolia in 1996, and described in Lu's 1999 thesis.
Scans of the photos can be sent to those who request them.

Lu et al. detail nine "new characters" shared between oviraptorids and
birds.  I should mention they include oviraptorids, Chirostenotes (as
Caenagnathus, they seem to ignore "elmisaurid" postcrania) and Nomingia in
Oviraptorosauria, but not Caudipteryx.  No mention is made of Microvenator.
1. Premaxillae fused and with elongate frontal process that extends
posteriorly to lacrimal.
Fused premaxillae are found in pygostylians, but their presence in
oviraptorids is not so clear.  Although Clark et al. (2002) describe
Citipati's premaxillae as fused, a clear suture is visible between the
elements on both their ventral and anterior surfaces.  This is the only
oviraptorid skull illustrated/described well enough to determine the
condition in.  However, Osmolska (1976) illustrated the juvenile crestless
skull ZPAL MgD-I/95 with a median suture, as did Barsbold et al. (1990) for
Conchoraptor and ventrally for Citipati sp. (IGM 100/42).
The second character is variable within oviraptorids (eg. absent in Khaan,
(Continue reading)

Bill Hunt | 1 Nov 2002 07:49

Re: SUCHOMIMUS = BARYONYX


> From: "Brian Lauret" <zthemanvirus <at> hotmail.com>
> Reply-To: zthemanvirus <at> hotmail.com
> Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 16:05:46 +0000
> To: dinosaur <at> usc.edu
> Subject: RE: SUCHOMIMUS = BARYONYX
> 
>> Bill Hunt wrote:
> I don't know about dinosaurs and other extinct animals, but in contempory
> zoology a species is defined by whether or not they can reproduce.  In
> other words, if a female and a male can produce viable offspring, then they
> belong to the same species.  If they can only produce sterile offspring; as
>in horse and donkey produce a mule, then they belong to the same genus, but
> not the same species.  All other classification beyond that is pretty much
> arbitrary or artificial.  Kinda hard to put these definitions to the test
> in Dinosaurs.  -  Bill
>> 
>> This definition is null and void when it comes to Snakes, and possibly
>> many other Reptiles and Amphibians.

    Well I would have to say that these folks are bending the definition of
"Species" or ignoring it altogether.  They ought to take a closer look at
the parents of the "Fertile Hybrids".    If the parents are from two
different genera and if they are indeed producing fertile offspring, then
perhaps those two different genera are in fact the same species, by
definition.  The differences in superficial appearence which caused them to
be placed in different genera in the first place may be differences in
subspecies or differences in races.   Look at the superficial differences
within our own species: hair, skin, eyes, stature, body type.

(Continue reading)

padron | 1 Nov 2002 09:12
Picon
Picon

Re: upside down ankylosaurs (jk)

Sitat Ken Carpenter <KCarpenter <at> dmns.org>:
> I suspect what really happened was
> that roving bands of delinquent subadult tyrannosaurs were engaging in
> ankylosaur tipping at night. 

heh
the thought of being at a chrime scene struck me after reading this:)

"what we got here?"
"ankylosaur... flipped over.."
"damn, third time this week, subadult tyrannosaur gangs you think?"
"yeah... most probably"

--------Øyvind M. Padron--------
--------------------------------
http://the_dinosauria.tripod.com
--------------------------------

Tim Donovan | 1 Nov 2002 12:00
Picon
Favicon

RE: So many tyrannosaur questions, so little time


>From: "Thomas R. Holtz, Jr." <tholtz <at> geol.umd.edu>
>To: "Tim Donovan" <msdonovan66 <at> hotmail.com>
>Subject: RE: So many tyrannosaur questions, so little time
>Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 08:48:50 -0500
>
> > From: Tim Donovan [mailto:msdonovan66 <at> hotmail.com]
> >
> >   Right. I think the Nemegt is a bit younger, maybe early late
> > Maastrichtian. S angustirostris is bigger than osborni, and big
> > dinos often
> > tended to get bigger over time. (I don't think the Mongolian
> > environment was
> > better than that of NA.)
>
>First of all, where is your data for the "better environment" in North
>America?  The Nemegt has been interpreted as an Okavango-like delta, and 
>the
>Okavango is one of THE best spots for large-bodied animals in Africa today.

   But Asia seems generally drier, even in Nemegtian times; Barungoyotin 
beds sometimes "interfinger" with those of the Nemegt.

>
>Furthermore, we aren't comparaing "Mongolia" and "North America"; we're
>comparing the Nemegt and the Horseshoe Canyon.  Major distinctions there,
>and the devil is in the details.
>
>Environmental differences are important.  After all, the
>Edmontosaurus-bearing beds of the Horseshoe Canyon are in the late
(Continue reading)


Gmane