Re: hypsilophodonts

[Dinogeorge@aol.com]

In a message dated 96-01-03 20:38:17 EST, longrich@phoenix.Princeton.EDU
(Nicholas R. Longrich) writes:

>       Drinker and Othnielia are not really just another couple of
>hypsilophodonts. For one, they have halluxes. For another, reversible
>ankles. That means they can climb trees, supposedly. For another, the jaws
>are very different. The beak is very narrow in the front- which Bakker
claims
>means that they pulled leaves in from the sides. For another, they lack the 
>diastema- the gap between the nipping and chewing functions/surfaces in the 
>jaws- a horse has nipping teeth up front, a gap in the jaw, and then the big
>grinders in the back. In a duckbill or ceratopsian, this is obvious: beak up
>front, teeth in back. Othnielia et al don't have this. What's more, the
>teeth themselves are quite unique- the little cusps on the edge themselves
bear
>cusps which is pretty unusual- something like what multituberculate mammals
had
>however. So between having arboreal adaptations, and unique teeth running to
>the predentary, these guys are not just your average hypsilophodonts. Bakker
>claims they aren't hypsilophodonts at all.

Where the devil is all this published? Or is this just hearsay? (The teeth
are described in the original description in _Hunteria_, but how about the
rest?)