I recently received my copy of the new Ceratosaurus paper. It will take me
a long time digest (not being from a palaeontology background). In the
brief read-through I have given it, I have some questions:
1. Why do the authors keep emphasizing size differences between C.
nasicornis and C. magnicornis? They start out saying that C. magnicornis
is a larger animal. Why do they emphasize that each bone is larger?
2. How long ago was the paper actually written? I didn't see it anywhere
(often they have an "accepted" date). The Allosaurus paper reprint
mentioned that it had been accepted, but this was 1993 and there are papers
after this date in the references.
3. Are there more Ceratosaurus papers in the works? The Bone Cabin Quarry
specimen and the Agate Basin Quarry specimen sound intriguing.
4. How well used is the term "pectoral vertebrae"? I remember it from
Wells paper in Dilophosaurus, but have not seen it elsewhere.
5. Does the number of maxillary/dentary teeth have diagnostic value? I
thought it didn't, but it is listed as one of the differences.
To make sure everybody knows where I am coming from, none of these are
criticisms of the paper, just questions. The only criticism that I have is
that I would have liked to have seen a reconstruction of the skulls and
skeletons of the new specimens, especially ones comparing them to C.
nasicornis. Maybe it isn't very scientific, but it would have made a good
picture.
Darryl Jones <dinoguy@interlog.com>
<dinoguy@netscape.com>
For information on tyrannosaurids and
cool activities and information for kids,
visit my webpage at:
http://www.interlog.com/~dinoguy