Re: Another Alxasaurus query (was: thanks and ...)

["Jaime A. Headden" <qilongia@yahoo.com>]

I wrote:

<<The best published analysis of the group (the whole group, excluding
*Alxasaurus*) is Barsbold & Maryanska, 1990, in _the Dinosauria_.>>

and Larry Dunn wrote:

<Better than Maryanska's analysis of the group (including Alxasaurus)
in The Complete Dinosaur?  What I mean is, didn't Alxasaurus,
described after 1990, change things considerably?>

  *Alxasaurus* has become the focus of therizinosauroids in every
successive study that contains therizinosaurs. It kinda shoved the
spotlight away from *Therizinosaurus*, or *Erlikosaurus* (at least in
respects); the completeness of the holotype, and all. The relative
study in Maryanska, 1997 is very general, and for the general reader,
not the specific study, and does not rival the more specific studies
in Perle, 1979, 1980; Barsbold, 1976, 1983; Barsbold and Perle, 1981;
1983 (in Barsbold, 1983); and Dong, 1976 (the last is assumed, as I
lack the article and can't read Chinese :) ).

  Maryanska, 1997, does a fair job of summarizing data from other
sources in addition to labelling which taxa have certain bones in
relation to others. Her chapter is the first summary of the "living"
biology of these creatures, so there is a big plus (not saying the
thing's useless otherwise, because _I_ certainly like it!).

==
- Often, it is the man who is brought
  down the path to the end who does
  not see his own steps. -

Jaime A. Headden

Qilong, the website, at:
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com