Re: Albian-Cenomanian English nodosaurs

[Dinogeorge@aol.com]

In a message dated 1/25/00 3:03:17 AM EST, mickey_mortimer@email.msn.com 
writes:

<< In addition, a couple nomina nuda are mentioned that aren't on George's
 list:
 Acanthopholis "hughesii"
 (SMC B55463-55490) six dorsals, seven caudals, transverse process, four
 metapodials, three phalanges, seven dermal plates
 All are ankylosaur except some of the metapodials (Dinosauria indet.) and
 some dorsal vertebrae (Ornithopoda indet.).
 
 Acanthopholis "keepingi"
 (SMC B55491-55526) five dorsals, six caudals, three transverse processes,
 rib, two chevrons, metatarsal, two phalanges, fragmentary ilium(?), thirteen
 dermal plates, two undetermined bones
 All are ankylosaur except some dorsal and caudal vertebrae (Ornithopoda
 indet.), a limb fragment (turtle) and the chevrons, rib, metatarsal and
 phalanges (Dinosauria indet.). >>

Actually, I have this paper (Pereda-Suberbiola & Barrett, 1998), but the 
necessary changes and updates to my MM #2 manuscript were so lengthy that I 
hadn't had time to add them to it. Consequently they didn't make it into the 
European dinosaurs list, either. Will get around to this in the next day or 
three. A. hughesii and A. keepingi are museum-label names, but now that 
they've appeared in the article, they're published nomina nuda. Good thing I 
haven't printed MM #3 yet; would like it to be as complete as possible. By 
the way, I just added (thanks to Tracy Ford and Darren Tanke) the species 
Deinonychus koreanensis to the Asian dino list, based on the same femur that 
is the "type" specimen of Koreanosaurus, in a faunal list and in a photo 
caption. Apparently described by Haang Mook Kim, the man who gave us 
Ultrasaurus tabriensis, but there is no reference cited. The journal is

Journal of Natural History and Environments Vol 1 #1, June 1993.

Published by the World Society of Natural History and Environments, Pusan 
University, Pusan, Korea. It actually has an ISSN number: ISSN 1225-6404. Not 
something you'd find in your local library.

Another article in the same journal has an Omeisaurus sinensis, but this is 
probably a very bad misprint for Omeisaurus tianfuensis.