Re: dinosaur taxonomy cont.

["Thomas R. Holtz, Jr." <th81@umail.umd.edu>]

At 06:34 AM 4/22/98, Dave Adams wrote:

>If someone has addressed each of the synomomies Greg proposed, on its
>merits, that is enough for me.  No one is obliged to use his taxonomy.  I
>realize that in many cases we are dealing with distorted and incomplete
>original material, and there is a subjective component in comparisons. 

In group comparisons of some T. rex specimens were conducted by Ken
Carpenter (see his paper in the 1990 Dinosaur Systematics volume); Carr &
Essner are looking at large tyrannosaurines from a specimen-by-specimen
phenetic standpoint; I am in the midst of looking at the same from a
character distribution standpoint.  The latter two works are not published
at present.

Both the latter two studies seem to support Greg Paul's conclusion that the
Asian "bataar" and "efremovi" material are closest to the North American
"rex" material, so that they can be included in Tyrannosaurus.

Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Vertebrate Paleontologist     Webpage: http://www.geol.umd.edu
Dept. of Geology              Email:th81@umail.umd.edu
University of Maryland        Phone:301-405-4084
College Park, MD  20742       Fax:  301-314-9661