[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: [Spam:5.0 SpamScore] Re: Rahiolisaurus vs Indosuchus (was Re: Nomen Dubium Misuse Part II- Gwyneddosaurus

To: dinosaur@usc.edu
Subject: Re: [Spam:5.0 SpamScore] Re: Rahiolisaurus vs Indosuchus (was Re: Nomen Dubium Misuse Part II- Gwyneddosaurus
From: James Stearns <jstea003@odu.edu>
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 22:26:04 -0500
Authentication-results: msg-ironport0.usc.edu; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
In-reply-to: <183531.30030.qm@web30105.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <528795.20835.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <183531.30030.qm@web30105.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Reply-to: jstea003@odu.edu
Sender: owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu

On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Tim Williams <tijawi@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Interestingly, the Rahioli abelisaur specimen ("Indosuchus") restored by 
>Chatterjee and Rudra (1996) included forelimb elements that Novas et al. 
>interpret as belonging to a juvenile titanosaur.  So no forelimb material is 
>known for _Rahiolisaurus_.

That explains a lot. I had been wondering why out of all the
abelisauroids and their ancestors (e.g. _Limusaurus_) "Indosuchus"
lacked the characteristic stubby arms.

References:
- Rahiolisaurus vs Indosuchus (was Re: Nomen Dubium Misuse Part II- Gwyneddosaurus
  - From: Tim Williams <tijawi@yahoo.com>
- Re: Rahiolisaurus vs Indosuchus (was Re: Nomen Dubium Misuse Part II- Gwyneddosaurus
  - From: Tim Williams <tijawi@yahoo.com>

Prev by Date: Re: Rahiolisaurus vs Indosuchus (was Re: Nomen Dubium Misuse Part II- Gwyneddosaurus
Next by Date: RE: Rahiolisaurus vs Indosuchus (was Re: Nomen Dubium Misuse Part II- Gwyneddosaurus
Previous by thread: Re: Rahiolisaurus vs Indosuchus (was Re: Nomen Dubium Misuse Part II- Gwyneddosaurus
Next by thread: RE: Rahiolisaurus vs Indosuchus (was Re: Nomen Dubium Misuse Part II- Gwyneddosaurus
Indexes: