Jaime A. Headden wrote:
And one of the main reasons why I argue the possibility of both caudal convexity or concavity as well as many other potential and variable features of vertebrae (such as neural spine bifurcation) in some sauropods isn't as important as we assume, and cannot be used to account for (or discount) the phylogenetic relationships of *Opisthocoelicaudia.* This is in contest to the so-called support for *O.* being a camarasaur;
Forgive me if I am mistaken, but were not teeth also known and the source of the designation "almond tooth," and hence, wouldn't the type be best considered to pertain to that tooth, and vertebrae if diagnostic rendered to another, if unnamed, species? Kinda defeats the spirit of the name and reference thereafter.
Tim