RE: Bruhathkayosaurus matelyi?

[Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

Rahul Daryanani wrote:

> By the way, Chatterjee himself supposedly confirmed that B. matelyi was a 
> sauropod.
>
> http://dml.cmnh.org/1999Mar/msg00516.html

Tracy Ford is an awfully nice fellow, but I would prefer to see something 
more concrete (like a publication).  However, I'm not disputing the 
possibility that _Bruhathkayosaurus_ is a titanosaur.  I just like to see a 
detailed description to this effect, and not rely on what's on the 
grapevine.

The thing is, a titanosaur of this size would be a momentous dicovery.  The 
__Bruhathkayosaurus_ issue reminds me of another contentious Indian taxon, 
_Dravidosaurus_.  This has gone from being a stegosaur to a plesiosaur to a 
stegosaur (again).  If _Dravidosaurus_ is indeed a stegosaur, it would be an 
important discovery as the youngest known member of the group, carrying the 
stegosaur banner into the Late Cretaceous.  What's needed is a detailed 
description of the taxon, which would help to clear this mess up; but this 
hasn't come to fruition yet.

Cheers

Tim

_________________________________________________________________
Talk now to your Hotmail contacts with Windows Live Messenger. 
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://get.live.com/messenger/overview