Re: remains of spinosauridae

["Jaime A. Headden" <qilongia@yahoo.com>]

Mickey Mortimer (Mickey_Mortimer111@msn.com) wrote:

<Yeah, but S. maroccanus is considered a junior synonym of S. aegyptiacus
now anyway.>

  Isn't it funny how when someone publishes a statement saying that two
taxa are similar, and it's so convincingly done (such as Sereno et al.'s
single sentence in 1998, the description of *Suchomimus*), "he" becomes
"everyone?" Not everyone holds this view of synonymy, such as Dale
Russell, and despite the attempt, *S. maroccanus* does have distinct
cervical morphology, however age-related it might be. Based on the lost
type of *S. aegyptiacus,* the quality of comparison is robust; it is my
observation that the opinion of Sereno et al. is based on the limited type
(a single vertebra) to which only other regionally found vertebrae were
found. This does not reduce the quality of the diagnosis. Perhaps *S.
maroccanus* can be a nomen dubium, but frankly, the centrum proportions
versus the shorter neural spine to size distinguishes the two species.

  Cheers,

=====
Jaime A. Headden

  Little steps are often the hardest to take.  We are too used to making leaps 
in the face of adversity, that a simple skip is so hard to do.  We should all 
learn to walk soft, walk small, see the world around us rather than zoom by it.

"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com