Re: New Chinese coelophysid (unnamed) photos

[William Parker <saurian55@gmail.com>]

Seems we'll simply have to (to quote Tom Holtz)  "wait for the paper".

On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Jaime Headden <qi_leong@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I agree with Mickey that the skull appears to be preserved to the tip, due to 
> the mandible's preservation (or that they are equally truncated, then 
> separated in post mortem position). However, the preservation of the material 
> (and possibly the incomplete preparation) makes assessing the morphology of 
> the snout difficult; I cannot even see a distinct margin for the external 
> naris, much less the shape of the premaxilla.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jaime A. Headden
> The Bite Stuff (site v2)
> http://qilong.wordpress.com/
>
> "Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)
>
>
> "Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a
> different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race
> has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or
> his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a Billion 
> Backs)
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------
>> Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 15:59:27 -0700
>> From: mickey_mortimer111@msn.com
>> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
>> Subject: RE: New Chinese coelophysid (unnamed) photos
>>
>>
>> Augusto Haro wrote-
>>
>> > It seems to me that the premaxilla is not preserved...
>>
>> I considered that possibility, but it seems odd that the mandible would also 
>> have its anterior end unpreserved, especially since the mandible is 
>> perpendicular to the skull.  Could be true though, and in that case I 
>> wouldn't have an issue with the specimen being coelophysoid.
>>
>> Mickey Mortimer
>>
>
>