Article on small theropod teeth in new issue of JP

[bh480@scn.org]

From: Ben Creisler bh480@scn.org
 
In case this one hasn't been mentioned yet, the new issue 
of the Journal of Paleontology has an article on theropod 
teeth from Alberta:

SANKEY, JULIA T.,  DONALD B. BRINKMAN,  MERRILEE 
GUENTHER,  and PHILIP J. CURRIE, 2002.  SMALL THEROPOD AND 
BIRD TEETH FROM THE LATE CRETACEOUS (LATE CAMPANIAN) 
JUDITH RIVER GROUP, ALBERTA. Journal of Paleontology: Vol. 
76, No. 4, pp. 751-763.
AB:  A collection of over 1,700 small theropod teeth from 
the Judith River Group (Campanian; 79.5?74 Ma) allows our 
understanding of the diversity and variation of small 
theropods in this assemblage to be refined. In addition to 
the previously recognized taxa, a series of 
morphologically distinct groups are recognized that may 
represent distinct taxa in some cases. Teeth with the 
Paronychodon-like features of a flat surface with 
longitudinal ridges on one side are resolved into a few 
discrete morphotypes. Two of these are included in 
Paronychodon lacustris  and two additional morphotypes are 
hypothesized to represent distinct taxa, here referred to 
as ?Dromaeosaurus morphotype A and Genus and species 
indet. A. The teeth of Paronychodon lacustris  and ?
Dromaeosaurus  morphotype A share a distinctive wear 
pattern that suggests tooth functioning involved contact 
between the flat surfaces of opposing teeth. Two species 
of Richardoestesia , R. gilmorei  and R. isosceles , are 
present in the assemblage. Additionally, bird teeth are 
identified in the assemblage and are described in this 
review. 
 Bivariate plots were used to document the variation in 
the theropod teeth, especially in the features that 
distinguish between Richardoestesia gilmorei , R. 
isosceles, Saurornitholestes, and Dromaeosaurus. 
Considerable overlap is present in all plots, so although 
the teeth are morphologically distinct, they are not 
easily distinguished by quantitative means.