Re: Shuvosaurus, first impressions

[Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

Jaime A. Headden wrote:

>   Rauhut has a paper on it arguing that 1) Chatterjee is not correct in 
> his interpretation, 2) that the skull belongs to a dinosaur, not a 
> non-dinosaurian archosaur, and 3) that the skull is consistent with basal 
> theropod dinosaurs (and is probably a ceratosaur). For example, it lacks a 
> postfrontal.

Yep, Rauhut makes some really good points regarding _Shuvosaurus 
inexpectatus_.  From memory (and maybe this is from Rauhut's work, but I'm 
not sure) there is a possibility that _Shuvosaurus_ and _Gojirasaurus_ are 
the same theropod.  OK, so _Shuvosaurus_ was toothless, and _Gojirasaurus_ 
has a trenchant tooth referred to it.  But the tooth might come from a 
different animal (like a scavenger).  Also, a _Shuvosaurus_-like premaxilla 
(larger than the type) has been reported from the same quarry that yielded 
_Gojirasaurus_, although I can't recall the reference.  According to this 
same report, the _Shuvosaurus_ type is probably juvenile.

Cheers

Tim