-------- Original-Nachricht -------- Betreff: RE: dinontogeny Datum: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 22:15:23 -0700 Von: GUY LEAHY <xrciseguy@q.com>An: Gregory Paul <gsp1954@aol.com>, Dinosaur Mailing List
<dinosaur@usc.edu>
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ---REMAINDER OF MESSAGE TRUNCATED--- * * This post contains a forbidden message format * * (such as an attached file, a v-card, HTML formatting) * * This Mail List at USC.EDU only accepts PLAIN TEXT * * If your postings display this message your mail program * * is not set to send PLAIN TEXT ONLY and needs adjusting * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
It was plain text, but somehow it was in MIME format nevertheless. From the source text:
Way back in 1986=2C Tim Tokaryk published a short paper in Canadian Field N= aturalist (v 100=2C p. 192-196) where he noted that all specimens of _Triceratops_ fr= om Canada were _T. prorsus_. By contrast=2C _T. horridus_ is much more com= mon in the U.S. where the two morphs co-occur. If this possible geographic= separation is still true (any updates would be welcome)=2C it could be int= erpreted to suggest that _T. prorsus_ and _T. horridus_ were separate speci= es. =20 Guy Leahy=20
I wonder if this, or the mentioned possibility of sexual dimorphism, brings us back to *Torosaurus latus* and *T. utahensis*. But I'd be surprised if that weren't mentioned in Scannella's upcoming paper.