Re: A couple of questions

[Marco Auditore <maaudito@tin.it>]

At 18.47 20/10/2002 +0800, dino_rampage@hotmail.com wrote:

> WHOAH... So does that mean that all the other specimens of "Oviraptor 
> philoceratops" (including the brooding specimen, the Romeo & Juliet 
> specimens featured on National Geographic etc etc) are all really 
> Citipati??? So that means that a lot of paleo artists & sculptors have 
> been restoring Citipati instead of Oviraptor!!! Then in that case how 
> would the 'real' O. philoceratops have looked like???

No, Romeo and Juliet are two of the three skeleton assigned to Khaan, while 
the brooding specimen is one of the fossil assigned to Citipati osmolskae. 
To this species are assigned the holotype (a skeleton in perfect state of 
conservation, but at the moment only the skull is described) and an embryo 
included in one egg of Big Mama. To Citipati sp. is assigned the "classic" 
skull and skeleton (GI 100/42) that was assigned, for years, to Oviraptor 
philoceratops.
Note that I've just received the volume on the Proceedengs of the 5th 
Symposium of the Society of avian paleontology and evolution: in the paper 
"Oviraptorosaurs compared to birds" by Lu, Dong, Azuma, Barsbold and Tomida 
there is a description of a new specimen, PC 100/2112 (here labelled 
Ingenia sp.), that is almost identical to Citipati, particularly to GI 
100/42. When the paper was written, the Citipati description was not out 
again, but for me this is another Citipati sp.

Marco