Re: New Ceratopian

["Toby White" <mwhite@houston.rr.com>]

Amazon says it won't have the volume until March, but will be happy to
accept your US$110 now.  I have this sick feeling that I may actually be
fool enough to do that ...

--Toby White

The Vertebrate Notes at:
http://home.houston.rr.com/vnotes/index.htm and
http://www.dinodata.net


----- Original Message -----
From: "AM Yates" <Adam.Yates@bristol.ac.uk>
To: <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 7:32 AM
Subject: New Ceratopian


>
> Yes the long-awaited "The age of dinosaurs in Russia and Mongolia is
> published" but it will cost you 90 pounds sterling to get it.
> Fortunately Mike Benton was kind enough to lend me his copy for a little
> while.
> The chapter on Marginocephalians by Sereno contains the description of a
> new Protoceratopid, Graciliceratops mongoliensis. The named is based on
> the partial skeleton that Maryanska and Osmolska referred to
> Microceratops gobiensis in 1975. Sereno points out that the types of
> Microceratops are indeterminate juvenile ceratopians and it is therefore
> a nomen dubium. Graciliceratops however can be diagnosed by the
> extremely thin margins of its frill and the high tibio:femoral ratio (a
> feature of immaturity itself I wonder).
>
> The ref is
>
> Sereno, P.C. 2000. The fossil record, systematics and evolution of
> pachycephalosaurs and ceratopsians from Asia.pp. 480-516. In M. J.
> Benton, M. A. Shishkin, D. M. Unwin and E. N. Kurochkin (eds) The age of
> dinosaurs in Russia and Mongolia. Cambridge University Press.
>
> Sereno's chapter also includes some superb specimen drawings of
> Prenocephale, Tylocephale and Stegoceras.
> The rest of the book is crammed with review articles dealing with all
> Mesozoic
> tetrapod groups from Russia and Mongolia. It is great to see (for purely
> selfish reasons) for the first time descriptions, diagnoses and ideas
> written in english, that previously needed to be translated from various
> russian journals and books. This is especially so with the Temnospondyl,
> early Archosaur and Synapsid chapters.
>
> Perhaps the biggest problem is the lack of critical review in some
> chapters. Most notably in the non-temnosapondyl amphibian chapter.
> Eleven species of the frog genus Gobiates are
> presented (filling two pages) without discussion of their diagnosis or
> any discussion of their validity.
>
>
> I could say more but I have to go now.
>
> cheers
>
> adam Yates
>