headers
Calzola | 1 May 2004 01:43
Picon

RE: Message Notify

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*         ---REMAINDER OF MESSAGE TRUNCATED---            *
*     This post contains a forbidden message format       *
*  (such as an attached file, a v-card, HTML formatting)  *
*    This Mail List at USC.EDU only accepts PLAIN TEXT    *
* If your postings display this message your mail program *
* is not set to send PLAIN TEXT ONLY and needs adjusting  *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Mickey Mortimer | 1 May 2004 01:06
Picon
Favicon

Re: Spinostropheus gautieri identified as an ... alvare.. wait a second!

Tim Williams wrote-

> Interestingly, Fig. 2 in Sereno et al. (2004), of a skeletal
reconstruction
> of _S. gautieri_, does not actually show the caudals; cervicals, dorsals
and
> the fragmentary sacrals are shown, as is the proximal humerus.  This
humerus
> fragment must have come from the holotype (or lectotype, I guess it should
> be called).  I would not read too much into this, but it is worth noting.
I
> wouldn't be surprised if Lapparent's original "type" specimen for _E.
> gautieri_ was a chimera.

Nor would I.  I think your "proximal humerus" is the first dorsal rib.

> Also, the most convincing alvarezsaurid characters are in the caudal
> vertebrae...
>
> http://www.cmnh.org/dinoarch/2002Jul/msg00370.html

True, those parts may still be alvarezsaurid.  But I'd really like to know
how the associated skeleton of Lapparent compares to Sereno's specimen and
the Spinostropheus holotype before saying anything for certain.  The sacral
centra of both of Lapparent's specimens are supposed to be similarly broad.
But the associated skeleton's sacrum is apparently only two vertebrae, fused
together.  They are described as being opisthocoelous and having a large
neural canal.  Alvarezsaurids have enlarged dorsal neural canals, and
derived taxa (Patagonykus + Mononykinae) have opisthocoelous dorsals, but
their sacral neural canals are of normal size (~25% of central height) and
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
MariusRomanus | 1 May 2004 02:06
Picon
Favicon

Re: New paper on the integument of Archaeopteryx

If someone has the ability to download the pdf of this Archae paper, could 
you please send it my way? I'd really appreciate it.

Thanks a million.

Kris
http://hometown.aol.com/saurierlagen/Paleo-Photography.html
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
MariusRomanus | 1 May 2004 02:11
Picon
Favicon

Re: New paper on the integument of Archaeopteryx

If someone has the ability to download the pdf of this Archae paper, could you please send it my way?  I'd
really appreciate it.

Thanks a million.

Kris
http://hometown.aol.com/Saurierlagen/Paleo-Photography.html
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Mark Hallett | 1 May 2004 08:01
Picon
Favicon

Re: The Killers of Oz

I believe that the "poor soil" hypothesis also is
questionable in light of palnological evidence showing
that until mid to late Miocene times, Australia
apparently had lush forests on a continental scale.
(Vickers-Rich et al, AUSTRALIA'S LOST WORLD: The
Prehistoric Animals of Australia)

--Mark Hallett (a former Australian who evolved in the
Atherton Tableland of Qsld.)

--- Colin McHenry <cmchenry <at> westserv.net.au> wrote:
> Because Steve is no doubt too modest to tell us
> himself, this article was spotted in the Sydney
> Morning Herald today.  The associated Proc. Roy.
> Soc. paper apparently came out yesterday.
> 
> Cheers
> Colin
> 
> **********************************
> Killers in our midst millennia ago
> By Deborah Smith, Science Editor
> April 28, 2004
> 
> URL:
>
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/27/1082831569778.html
> 
> The online edition of The Sydney Morning Herald
> brings you updated local and world news, sports
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Mickey Rowe | 1 May 2004 09:01
Picon
Favicon

Dinosaur List Administrative Message

This file was last edited April 1st, 2004.

// A new (3/25/04) offense has been described in section 8k.  In brief, you 
// are not allowed to send messages from people who are not allowed to send
// messages to the list.
//
// Back to the old stuff:
//
// If you're new or haven't been paying attention... we have implemented
// a filter designed to block all MIME or html coded portions of messages.
// We had to do this to prevent viruses from circulating through the list.
// In order for your messages to reach everyone, and more importantly in 
// order for your messages to appear in the archive, you *MUST* send them
// as plain text only.  If you have any doubts about whether or not you
// are doing this, please check the archives to see how your messages are
// appearing.  If you do not know how to format your mail as plain text
// only, please see:  http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
//
// As always, comments on policy are welcomed as long as they are made
// to the list-owners and not to the list. -- MPR

Rather than sending the whole long administrative message each month
I'm going to give you only the table of contents and the two sections
that I expect to be the most popular.  If you wish to see the entire
document you can visit it at any time at:

http://www.dinosaurmailinglist.org

-------------------------
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Jaime A. Headden | 1 May 2004 10:04
Picon
Favicon

RE: Spinostropheus gautieri identified as an ... alvare.. wait a second!

Tim Williams (twilliams_alpha <at> hotmail.com) wrote:

<Interestingly, Fig. 2 in Sereno et al. (2004), of a skeletal
reconstruction of _S. gautieri_, does not actually show the caudals;
cervicals, dorsals and the fragmentary sacrals are shown, as is the
proximal humerus.  This humerus fragment must have come from the holotype
(or lectotype, I guess it should be called).  I would not read too much
into this, but it is worth noting.  I wouldn't be surprised if Lapparent's
original "type" specimen for _E. gautieri_ was a chimera.>

  That figure only illustrates the refered specimen. The caudal of de
Lapparent is a dorsal ... and fills in the gap in the unknown dorsal
centra, at least what is illustrated.

  Cheers,

=====
Jaime A. Headden

  Little steps are often the hardest to take.  We are too used to making leaps in the face of adversity, that a
simple skip is so hard to do.  We should all learn to walk soft, walk small, see the world around us rather than
zoom by it.

"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)

	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Jason Michalak | 1 May 2004 10:17
Picon
Favicon

Are these characters accurate?

I just saw this website (http://www.evowiki.org/wiki.phtml?title=Aves) and 
wondered if what it is saying is accurate. It lists "Caudal tympanic recess 
opens with the columellar recess", "Caudal maxillary sinus present", 
"Prenarial aspect of premaxilla elongate", "Prezygapophyses reduced 
distally", "Pes anisodactyl" and "Teeth with characteristic root 
constriction (after Martin et al. 1980, Gauthier 1986, Chiappe 1995 and 
Chiappe et al. 1996)" as supporting the bird node. From my last stupid 
question I'm pretty sure the first and second are not accurate, but are the 
rest? The reversed hallux seems doubtful given some of the recent discussion 
anyway.

-Jason-

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now! 
http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Mickey Mortimer | 1 May 2004 10:42
Picon
Favicon

Re: Are these characters accurate?

Jason Michalak wrote-

> I just saw this website (http://www.evowiki.org/wiki.phtml?title=Aves) and
> wondered if what it is saying is accurate. It lists "Caudal tympanic
recess
> opens with the columellar recess", "Caudal maxillary sinus present",
> "Prenarial aspect of premaxilla elongate", "Prezygapophyses reduced
> distally", "Pes anisodactyl" and "Teeth with characteristic root
> constriction (after Martin et al. 1980, Gauthier 1986, Chiappe 1995 and
> Chiappe et al. 1996)" as supporting the bird node. From my last stupid
> question I'm pretty sure the first and second are not accurate, but are
the
> rest? The reversed hallux seems doubtful given some of the recent
discussion
> anyway.

It all depends on the rest of your phylogeny.
"braincase - posterior tympanic recess - opens into collumelar (= external
otic) recess" is known in mononykines and troodontids in addition to Aves.
"maxilla - ossified medial wall of caudal maxillary sinus - present" is not
definitely known in any non-ornithurine, but has been reported for
Gobipteryx.  See http://www.cmnh.org/dinoarch/2004Apr/msg00324.html for my
opinion of reports of this structure in other theropods.
"external naris - posterior displacement - prenarial length" is larger in
Aves (>15% of preorbital length) than in most other theropods except
enigmosaurs.
"caudal vertebrae - prezygopophses - length <40% of centrum" is also found
in Bagaraatan, compsognathids, Coelurus, alvarezsaurids, therizinosauroids,
Protarchaeopteryx, caenagnathoids and basal troodontids.
"metatarsal I - shaft torsion - twisted to cause hallux to be directed
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
David Marjanovic | 1 May 2004 12:34
Picon
Picon

Re: Rapator,the giant alvarezsaur

> I like to imagine giant alvarezsaurids like huge Maribu storks (or
> Australia's Jabiru stork, with a confusingly similar name).

Marabu and Jabiru, emphasis on the first and last syllable respectively, are
not all that similar :-)

> Of course, there's nothing to stop smaller alvarezsaurids from living
> much like storks do (well, apart from the whole extinction thing, which
> has limited their behaviour significantly in recent years). People seem
> to place a lot of emphasis on their forelimbs alone, as if their entire
> behavioural repatoir must have accounted for them. They had other body
> parts as well...

Why do you think they had anything similar to a beak?

There are some really gigantic termite hills. A fossil one from the Morrison
Fm is said to be 30 m high. That sort of thing should be able to sustain a
giant myrmecophage. But, of course, more bones of *Rapator* wouldn't hurt.
We don't even know how many fingers it had (*Shuvuuia* retained 3...).
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane