Correcting the DD5 edits

[tlford@ix.netcom.com (Tracy Ford)]

I have just read what I wrote for DD 5. I didn't think I really needed 
to since I wrote it and I knew what I wrote. And I feel it is important 
to make a few corrections.

But?

I have problems with the editing of the Tapejara section. I wrote.. . 
They mainly are found in the Romualdo Member, many of which are three 
dimensional, with a few from the Crato Member, which are more 
flattened, similar to the Niobrara Formation of Kansas? which was 
condensed to It is from the Crato Member of the Santana Formation 
(famous for the well-preserved fish, dinosaurs, and pterosaurs 
found there). No the Crato member is not. It is the Romualdo member 
that has the well-preserved material, as what I originally wrote shows. 
This is important distinction of the two members. I don't want to 
mislead people into thinking that it is the  Crato member that has the 
well-preserved material, which it does not. (I see that in the Second 
to the last paragraph the distinction is made).

Also, I wrote.. Most of the sutures of the skull are obliterated by 
fusion, indicating it to be an adult animal?After sutures [joints] was 
added. Now to me, joints means where the limbs joins the body, and 
where movement is done, which is not the case in the skull.

Also it was added into the last paragraph, This species (referring to T 
wellnhoferi) may or may not have had the large sail-like crest of 
Tapejara imperator. Well it didn't.

The drawing of T. imperator is wrong, the body is way to long, which 
makes the wings way to thick, Also the head is to small for the body. 
The drawing of Titanosaurus colberti has the wrong number of toes on 
the front foot. I only mention this because the very first article I 
wrote for Prehistoric Times was on the number of claws on the foot of 
sauropods is usually drawn wrong. They had only 1 (one) thumb claw on 
the manus. Perhaps I should send J. Whitcraft a copy of my article.

One of the problems I have with the editing is in the Boys from Brazil 
section, I wrote Kellner talks about Angaturama limai, it was edited to 
Kellner describes? To me, this means a formal description, which is not 
the case since he described Angaturama in an earlier paper. I wrote it 
was found in the Santana Formation, but it was edited to the Romualdo 
Member of the Santana Formation (This is a GOOD edit).

The following edit really gets my craw. I wrote in the Out of India 
section; Indosaurus matleyi (Carnotarsus like), It was edited into 
(Carnosaur?) I don't know if DD edited this or Tom did, but shame on 
who ever. I meant CARNOTARSUS like. I drew Indosaurus for the Dinosaur 
Society Dinosaur Encyclopedia after Carnotarsus. 

I strive for accuracy in both my writing (it needs help) and in my 
drawings. Accuracy in paleontology, weather it is in a scientific paper 
or a lay mans book, newsletter, paper, is very important and I am very 
adament about this, and I do my best to achieve this.


Tracy