RE: Tree trunks (was RE: Bruhathkayosaurus matelyi?)

[Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

Mickey Mortimer wrote:

> Chatterjee told me that Bruhathkayosaurus was a titanosaur as well, so Ford 
> has nothing to do with the issue.

Until this is actually published, it's still just "he-said/she-said".  It 
doesn't matter if the secondary source is you or Ford.

Tom Holtz wrote:

> To be fair: not all units are the Dinosaur Park or the Djadokhta. In some 
> preservation is really,
> really, really crappy. You might get all sorts of authigenic growth on the 
> fossils, or alteration of
> the original material. In outcrops like that, it isn't out of the question 
> to be fooled into thinking bone is wood and vice versa, especially from 
> simple surficial appearances.

All true.  And it's happened before (e.g., _Aachenosaurus_).  However, this 
does not detract from the fact that the original description of 
_Bruhathkayosaurus_ is rather unhelpful.  Unlike _Aachenosaurus_ (= 
petrified wood fragments mistaken for pieces of jaw), __Bruhathkayosaurus_ 
is described from a partial skeleton.  If the preservation is so bad that an 
ilium and limb elements can be mistaken for parts of a tree trunk (or vice 
versa), you have to wonder if the creature really deserved to be named in 
the first place.

Cheers

Tim

Cheers

Tim

_________________________________________________________________
Get free, personalized commercial-free online radio with MSN Radio powered 
by Pandora http://radio.msn.com/?icid=T002MSN03A07001