Re: taxonomy is not stratigraphy (was Re: JVP 25(2): New Dinos, Birds, Discoveries)

[Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

Denver Fowler wrote:

> I searched for "Fowler" in the SVP 2004 abstracts PDF, but I couldn't
> find the abstract for your talk.  Is it available?
>
> Not an abstract, just me and my laptop. Inference is
> based on some new material. can't say anymore other
> than it is really big.

Can you say if it is (a) really _Alamosaurus_; or (b) co-existed with 
_Tyrannosaurus_?

> I would go so far as to say 'Alamosaurus' may have been the biggest North 
> American sauropod ever (my claim from SVP2004), certainly it gave all the 
> morrison sauropods a run for their money.

Wow.  Like Mike, I find this snippet very tantalizing.  When one talks about 
Morrison sauropods, you're really in the big leagues: _Amphicoelias_, 
_Supersaurus_ (?=_Barosaurus_), _Seismosaurus (?=_Diplodocus_), 
_Brachiosaurus_.  To be the "biggest North American sauropod ever" is quite 
a feat.  My apologies to _Alamosaurus_.

Diplodocids were long, but not very heavy for their length; _Brachiosaurus_ 
was heavy, but not very long.  Titanosaurs were heavyset like brachiosaurs, 
but tend to have much shorter necks and tails than diplodocids.  A better 
yardstick might be to compare this new _Alamosaurus_ material with a big-ass 
titanosaur like _Argentinosaurus_ or _Pelligrinisaurus_.  AFAIK, there are 
no Morrison titanosaurs (unless _"Apatosaurus" minimus" is one).

Cheers

Tim