STONESFIELD THEROPODS AGAIN & ALUMINUM

[darren.naish@port.ac.uk]

This is coming weeks and weeks late (sorry) but wanted to 
get it out of the way. Many posts ago we discussed here the 
fact that the Stonefield Slate Fm maxilla OUM J13506 
appears fundamentally different from those of 
megalosaurids (_Eustreptospondylus_, _Torvosaurus_ etc), 
most importantly in lacking the long, low rostral ramus. Its 
shape has even led some workers to suggest that it is from a 
sinraptorid. This all suggests that - assuming that 
_Megalosaurus bucklandii_ [whatever material you base it 
on] is a megalosaurid - (1) OUM J13506 is not from _M. 
bucklandii_, nor from a megalosaurid at all and (2) there is 
more than one big theropod in the Stonesfield Slate Fm. Go 
here for my original point....

http://www.cmnh.org/dinoarch/2002Dec/msg00096.html

As has been discussed at length on this list, Stephan 
Pickering maintains (following Welles) that much of the 
large theropod material from Stonesfield belongs together 
and truly does represent a single skeleton. Therefore _M. 
bucklandii_ is not based only on the dentary OUM J13505 
but on a suite of specimens. While it is not clear that this is 
the case from Buckland 1824, Stephan is not alone in this 
view as it was also advocated by Delair and [the late] 
Sarjeant (2002). According to the following post by 
Stephan, OUM J13506 is supposed to be part of this 
associated skeleton...

http://www.cmnh.org/dinoarch/2002Mar/msg00553.html

Please correct me if I'm mistaken (Stephan: you mention 
two maxillae but do not cite specimen OUM J13506). If 
OUM J13506 is supposed to be part of the allegedly 
associated _M. bucklandii_ specimen, and given that OUM 
J13506 is fundamentally different from other megalosaurid 
maxillae, then either... 

(1) Buckland's original specimens do represent one skeleton 
but the maxilla shows that _M. bucklandii_ is (a) 
fundamentally different from all other megalosaurids or (b) 
not a megalosaurid (!).

(2) Buckland's original specimens do not represent one 
skeleton, the association of these elements with the dentary 
OUM J13505 is incorrect and there is more than one big 
theropod at Stonefield.

Moving briefly on to something entirely different, Mike 
Keesey wrote...

> That's *aluminum*! :)

Pains me to say it, but aluminum is the correct original 
spelling. This was changed in British English when all -um 
element endings were standardised to -ium (some time in 
the early 1900s I believe). American English therefore 
preserves the older spelling and pronunciation.

-- 
Darren Naish
School of Earth & Environmental Sciences
University of Portsmouth UK, PO1 3QL

email: darren.naish@port.ac.uk
tel: 023 92846045