[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Dino Illustrations
>In a message dated 95-11-21 04:56:13 EST,
endocrin@desktop.com.au (Graeme
>Worth) writes:
>
>> In most cases there is no problem, but when the extant
material is
>>eg isolated teeth and skull fragment (Stygimoloch) and we
are presented with
>>a full colour illustration of two males head butting for
control of the
>>herd, do we simply admire the artwork, or do we say "Ah,
so that's what
>>Stygimoloch looked like!"
>
>Stygimoloch is known from much better material that
this...! (No postcrania
>yet, unless you think the Triebold specimen is a
Stygimoloch.)
That's what I thought when I first saw a skull cast
photo.. "Pachycephalosaurus? Those spikes look more like
Stygimoloch!" Sure seems odd that the skull is so similar to
the AMNH Pachy skull. Of course, not having seen the
unrestored material for either, I'm not certain how much was
inferred in the restoration.
-------------------------------------
Name: Michael Edward Purvis
E-mail: us009472@pop3.interramp.com (Michael Edward Purvis)
Date: 06/23/95
Time: 09:40:26
"I really must stop loaning dinosaurs to folks.." :)
-------------------------------------