Re: Minotaurasaurus controversy

[Tim Williams <tijawi@yahoo.com>]

Just a minor point in clarification, which in no way contradicts anything said 
here so far.  Lack of stratigraphic information *per se* does not preclude a 
fossil from being published in a respectable journal - taxa such as _Hallopus_ 
and _Dyslocosaurus_ are good examples.  The issue in the case of 
_Minotaurasaurus_ is the circumstances that led to the lack of stratigraphic 
information.


P.S. As for _Hallopus_ (basal crocodylomorph) and _Dyslocosaurus_ (diplodocoid 
sauropod), last I heard both were regarded as coming from the Morrison 
Formation (Late Jurassic), rather than the Lower Ralston Creek Fm (Middle 
Jurssic) or Lance Fm (Late Cretaceous), respectively.


P.P.S. Is _Dyslocosaurus_ really a diplodocoid?  I've heard it said that it 
might be a titanosaur - but this could be based solely on the assumption that 
it came from the Lance, and the only sauropods known from the very end of the 
Cretaceous are titanosaurs.  But is there more to it...?



Cheers

Tim