Re: From Oliver Rauhut - Re: Amygdalodon addendum

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

Oliver Rauhut wrote, forwarded by Tim Williams
(twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com):

<Wouldn´t think so. It doesn´t look like any dinosaur dermal armour I´ve
ever seen and would be awefully big for any of the sauropods represented
by the material of Amygdalodon. It kind of looks like part of a plate of a
large turtle, maybe with a rib attachment on the interior side, though
Marcelo de la Fuente could not identify it as any turtle element. Another
possibility might be part of a plesiosaur pectoral girdle (parts of the
section are marine), but again, Zulma Gasparini saw it and couldn´t think
of any plesiosaur bone that looks like that. The bone thus remains a
mystery and can only be referred to as vertebrata indet.>

  Maybe not that far back, as it is unlikely a fish had such a large plate
of curved bone. However, would it be possibly a portion of iliac or othe
pelvic plate with curvature of "bowling" or "cupping" of the surface?
Adhered bone can be artefactual, and thus not naturally a part of the
element. It needn't be sauropodan either, but ankylosaurian, etc.

  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! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com