RE: Rauhut's Thesis

["Rob Gay" <rob_redwing@hotmail.com>]

> I'd have to disagree with you here.<
I think we might be saying the same thing actually. I just may not have been
clear (as is often my problem). Let's see if I can restate myself, in light
of your comments.

> If D. sinensis is indeed a ceratosaur<
Which seems likely, I would say.

> then I would have a hard time beleiving that the crest is convergent.<
Why not? Ceratosaurs apparently like to "play around" with cranial
ornamentation (_Dilophosaurus_, _Ceratosaurus_, "Syntarsus" _kayentakatae_).
I see no reason to place two ceratosaurs in the same genus based on the
presence of cranial ornamentation.

> sinensis may be a new genus<
Indeed, I would agree. I think I just wasn't clear before.

> but the skull figured on the Dinosauricon and in the paper is clearly very
> close to D. wetherilli.<
Similar, yes. But the placement and size of the narial opening, placement
and size of the aof, shape of the orbit, shape and size of the premax, shape
and size of the gap, and general morphology of the mandible, and lenght of
the teeth don't seem consistant with _Dilophosaurus_. There are also other
features in the body that are off from what I would expect in a species of
_Dilophosaurus_ as well. So, clear conclusion:
"Dilophosaurus" _sinensis_ is (IMNSHO) a ceratosaur, possibly a
coelophysoid, but not congeneric with _Dilophosaurus_.
Peace,
Rob

Student of Geology
Northern Arizona University
Biological Science Tech
Manti-La Sal National Forest
AIM: TarryAGoat
http://www.geocities.com/elvisimposter/dinopics.html
http://www.cafepress.com/RobsDinos
"A _Coelophysis_ with feathers?"

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com