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

[Denver Fowler <df9465@yahoo.co.uk>]

> Niall Mateer 1976. New topotypes of Alamosaurus
> sanjuanensis Gilmore
> (Reptilia: Sauropoda). Bulletin of the Geological
> Intitutions of the
> University of Uppsala. NS 6:93-95. Described a
> partial ilium and sacrum
> collected by C Sternberg "from the same locality as
> Gilmore's type
> specimen..."

Thanks for that Ken. 

BTW Sorry if I don't include alot of refs for various
statements: it's because I only have limited files
here on my work PC, and these don't include my
alamosaurus refs.

having visited the type locality I can safely say
there isn't much left to find! well... not immediately
obvious on the surface anyway. God alone knows how
long natural erosion would take to expose a skelton
completely.

Denver.


> 
> Kenneth Carpenter, Ph.D. 
> Curator of Lower Vertebrate Paleontology 
> and Chief Preparator 
> Department of Earth Sciences 
> Denver Museum of Nature & Science 
> 2001 Colorado Blvd. 
> Denver, CO 80205 USA
> 
> Ken.Carpenter@DMNS.org
> ph: 303-370-6392/ or 6403 
> fx: 303-331-6492 
> 
> for PDFs of my reprints, info about the Cedar Mtn.
> Project, etc. see:
>
https://scientists.dmns.org/sites/kencarpenter/default.aspx
> for fun, see also:
>
http://dino.lm.com/artists/display.php?name=Kcarpenter
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu
> [mailto:owner-dinosaur@usc.edu] 
> > On Behalf Of Denver Fowler
> > Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 9:56 AM
> > To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> > Subject: Re: taxonomy is not stratigraphy (was Re:
> JVP 25(2): 
> > New Dinos, Birds, Discoveries)
> > 
> > 
> > --- Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Can you say if it is (a) really _Alamosaurus_;
> or
> > > (b) co-existed with
> > > _Tyrannosaurus_?
> > 
> > It's not possible to say that any sauropod
> material is 
> > 'alamosaurus' because the holotype is not
> diagnostic:
> > a single scapula. For Alamosaurus read 'titanosaur
> material 
> > found in the late K of North America Utah and
> southwards'.
> > 
> > and large tyrannosaurids are known from the same
> strata. 
> > Tyrannosaurus? that's what we've been debating
> right?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > > 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_.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > 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).
> > 
> > Comparisons can be made anywhere you like. I've
> seen really 
> > big 'supersaurus', and 'seismosaurus' material
> personally, so 
> > can vouch for how big those animals were. pretty
> much all 
> > (although obviously not all) titanosaur material I
> have seen 
> > has been early cretaceous of the UK, and not that
> big.
> > 
> > Denver 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > Cheers
> > > 
> > > Tim
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >             
> >
>
___________________________________________________________
> > How much free photo storage do you get? Store your
> holiday 
> > snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos
> http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
> > 
> 



        
        
                
___________________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail 
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com