[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Shuvosaurus, first impressions
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