Re: RAJASAURUS

["Mickey Mortimer" <Mickey_Mortimer111@msn.com>]

Jaime Headden wrote-

> Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> <BTW, isn't the type material of _Lametasaurus indicus_ a composite of
> different taxa?>
>
>   It's based on a partial braincase; referred plate-like material, such as
> the ilia, were considered to be horizontal, which led to the ID as an
> ankylosaur by Matley. However, I think this has since been identified as
> an abelisaur ilium, instead;

Walker (1964) specified the holotype of Lametasaurus as the numerous scutes
found in association with presumed abelisaur material.  This latter material
(sacrum, ilia, tibia) was originally described as part of Lametasaurus
(syntypes?), but near certainly doesn't belong with the scutes, which are
probably titanosaurian or perhaps ankylosaurian.  Some are even crocodilian.
Walker did propose a partial braincase referred to Indosuchus (K 20/350) was
in reality thyreophoran (and therefore possibly referrable to Lametasaurus),
but no cranial material was ever part of the type material of that genus.
The theropod tibia seems to be of the robust variety, so may belong to
"Rajasaurus".

Mickey Mortimer