Psittacosaurus Complexus

["Jaime A. Headden" <qilongia@yahoo.com>]

  Now that this specimen is in a museum, we can hope that data will be 
published on this soon. To
that end, I second Gunter's post in asking that discussion be kept to the bare 
bones of the
specimen, and not about the "feathers" or whatever they are on the specimen 
itself.

  However, this doesn't address the main point. To second Pete Buchholz 
(tetanurae@aol.com), why
does every psittacosaurid have to be *Psittacosaurus*? There's enough variation 
among the species
to indicate higher taxonomic nesting of some species, but not others, and 
similarities among only
some that indicates nesting of a few species. At that point, you name new taxa 
to include some of
the species. With some eight valid species or so, it is one of the most 
_prolific_ "genera" in
Dinosauria today. Some are more primitive (i.e., more basal) than others, 
others quite unique. I
would like to entertain, on Pete's behalf, a discussion of possibly splitting 
*Psittacosaurus*
into distinct genera. The problem is, there are not that many features that can 
be used to
differentiate them all, and most are based on cranial material. Also, they're 
not theropods, so I
don't know how well the list will take to them ;) ... sorry, couldn't resist a 
stab at the
theropodophiles! :)


=====
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.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com