|
Calzola wrote-
Would anbody out there, after looking at the
general proportions of this bone, be able to make some kind of speculation
regarding its owner?( well, i think that if they let us see it, it's possible to
espress personal opinions, right?)
Unfortunately, the maxilla is incomplete dorsally
and photographed in such a way that many details (presence of promaxillary
fenestra, etc.) are undiscernable. The maxilla is of roughly megalosaur
proportions (which is to say it resembles just about any large theropod) and
appears to have at least thirteen teeth. If it weren't for the fact they
specifically said it was not from Carchardontosaurus, I would assign it to that
animal. The difference is presumedly in the tooth morphology, as
Carcharodontosaurus has distinctive ridged teeth that aren't as recurved as many
theropods. The main problem in identifying this species is
the homogeniety of large theropod maxillae. It could very well be
from an abelisaurid or Deltadromeus (which are in the area). It
is not from a spinosaurid, as these have much longer and lower maxillae
that are very convex anteroventrally. That's why these types of
things need to be described, preparation and personal examination is vital to
understanding them correctly.
Mickey Mortimer
|