Re: Dinosaur Genera List corrections #98

["Allan Edels" <Edels@email.msn.com>]

    Bakker had a cast of the skull and the left lower jaw with him at
DinoFest 1998.  I was there when he first showed the skull to Jack McIntosh
and Dong Zhiming.  (In fact, I was holding the jaw for him while he was
showing the braincase to Jack).

    Jack McIntosh's INITIAL view was that the braincase was _significantly_
different than _Apatosaurus_.  Bakker's initial idea was to resurrect
_Brontosaurus_ based on this reconstructed skull  (due to be so much
different than _Apatosaurus_).

    One cautionary note, the skull was reconstructed using a wax casting of
the original, which was then stretched to what was considered the proper
shape.

        Allan Edels

-----Original Message-----
From: Stanley Friesen <sarima@ix.netcom.com>
To: dinosaur@usc.edu <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Date: Thursday, November 05, 1998 10:39 AM
Subject: Re: Dinosaur Genera List corrections #98


>At 12:39 PM 11/4/98 -0500, TWILLIAMS@canr1.cag.uconn.edu wrote:
>>For those who are interested: judging from Bakker's paper, the
>>splitting of _Apatosaurus_ and _Brontosaurus_ is based upon
>>features  (or one feature) of the braincase: position of the
>>basitubera.
>
>Eh, sounds rather weak to me.  It is not even clear to me that this would
>not show considerable individual variation.
>
>I always try to keep in mind that Bakker is an extreme splitter as far as
>genera are concerned.  I find it pays to be somewhat cautious about
>accepting Bakker's genera.
>
>What I would really like to have more info. on is his  reasons for
>splitting out Eobrontosaurus, so I can evaluate that genus better.
>
>--------------
>May the peace of God be with you.         sarima@ix.netcom.com
>
>