[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: SVP Abstracts 2006 pdf
Jaime Headden wrote:
Although I disagree with Carr's points as they were raised in the abstract,
but
it would be nice to see the rest of the data.
Indeed. Which is why I was treading on eggshells when I first alluded to
this. Given that the Abstract is in the public domain, and with the caveat
that an in-depth dissection of the claim in question is pointless without
seeing the pertinent data, it's probably worth grabbing this tiger by the
tail. Carr argues that _Guanlong_ is not in fact a tyrannosauroid, but a
carnosaur most closely related to (and perhaps the same as)
_Monolophosaurus_.
Just some background... Zhao and Currie (1993) noted the fused nasals and
enlarged antorbital fossa of _Monolophosaurus_ ; I wonder just how many
cranial characters are functionally correlated with the development of a
large, median, pneumatic crest. Also, Xu et al. (2006) compared _Guanlong_
to _Monolophosaurus_ in the Supp. Info., and explicitly rejected a close
relationship. If someone had told me that _Monolophosaurus_ might be the
same as another Jurassic theropod, I would have put my money on
_Xuanhanosaurus_, not _Guanlong_. Time will tell.
Cheers
Tim