Re: Dermal coverings

[Dinogeorge@aol.com]

In a message dated 9/7/99 4:21:27 PM EST, m_troutman@hotmail.com writes:

<< Wow, I don't know what to be more shocked about: the new therizinosaur or 
 Dinogeorge's change in position!  Makes me wonder whether this is some sort 
 of joke... >>

Can no longer allow the hypothesis get in the way of the facts.

By the way, this doesn't nullify my opinion that ornithischians are more 
closely related to sauropods and prosauropods than they are to theropods (so 
that Saurischia = Dinosauria); only that segnosaurs aren't descended from the 
still-hypothetical intermediate forms connecting sauropodomorphs and 
ornithischians. Also doesn't nullify my opinion that the description of the 
Erlikosaurus skull is full of pesky and misleading little errors, such as 
conflating parasphenoid and basisphenoid, and asserting that only theropods 
have interdental plates when this feature is manifest in many prosauropods. 
Or that Beipiaosaurus is some kind of segnosaur (case >not< well made in that 
paper, but comparison with the Utah specimens should finally establish this). 
Nothing I read in the literature was nearly as convincing as simply handling 
and examining the new specimens.