RE: Rauhut's Thesis

[rbi <rbi@dana.ucc.nau.edu>]

>It's interesting, but not necessarily indicitive. And the form isn't exactly
>the same, at least in "D." _sinensis_, when the crest is much lower and
>placed much closer to the front of the snout (not to mention more robust).

And, I would expect this if there is a specific or generic separation between
taxa.  Now, the difference between Dilophosaurus and Monolophosaurus, is
definitely convergent, as the crests are formed by different bones and have a
completely different morphology.

>The double-crest of _Syntarsus kayentakatae_ was restored with
>_Dilophosaurus_ very much in mind.  AFAIK, no _S. kayentakatae_ specimen
>exhibits this type of crest in its entirety; the presence of a dual
>nasolacrimal crest in _S. kayentakatae_ was inferred from the structure of
>the (incompletely preserved) skull roof in the type specimen<
>In Rowe (1989), Tykoski (1998) and a slide shown by Ralph Molnar, the skull
>is complete, crushed with the left side raised in relation to the right
>side, and with a complete left crest. Rowe states that the right crest was
>also present, but was lost during preparation.

I thought so...I didn't think that the photos of the skull in JVP had any
plaster.

Regards,
Randall Irmis