_Bienosaurus_ questions

["T. Mike Keesey" <tmk@dinosauricon.com>]

Just got my copy of _Mesozoic Vertebrate Life_ today! Very impressive
tome.

One sentence in Dong Zhiming's _Bienosaurus_ paper has me scratching my
head, though:

"Because the new form (_Bienosaurus_) does not include armor plates, as in
ankylosaurs and stegosaurs, it is best regarded as neither stegosaur nor
ankylosaur, but as a primitive thyreophoran."

This is already odd, since _Bienosaurus_ is not known from any postcranial
elements, so I'd think you wouldn't expect to find armor plates. But it
gets stranger when read in conjunction with other statements:

"A small armored ornithischian [_Bienosaurus_] is referred to the
Scelidosauridae..."

"I remove Scelidosauridae to Ankylosauria as a basal family. This family
includes several small armored ornithischians (_Emausaurus_,
_Lusitanosaurus_, _Scutellosaurus_, and _Scelidosaurus_)."

So:
1) _Bienosaurus_ does not belong in Ankylosauria.
2) _Bienosaurus_ belongs in Scelidosauridae.
3) Scelidosauridae belongs in Ankylosauria.

?!?

Is there a typo? A mistranslation? Am I missing something?

Elsewhere he cites some features uniting _Bienosaurus_ with ankylosaurs,
such as "fusion of small scutes to the frontal and supraorbital bones" and
"dentary wide ... with a strongly curved tooth row". So the paper seems
consistent except for that one sentence.

(Sorry if this was mentioned before and I missed it.)

And, one more question -- wasn't this animal originally going to be named
Bienosaurus crichtoni, after Michael Crichton?

_____________________________________________________________________________
T. MICHAEL KEESEY
 Home Page               <http://dinosauricon.com/keesey>
  The Dinosauricon        <http://dinosauricon.com>
   personal                <keesey@bigfoot.com> --> <tmk@dinosauricon.com>
    Dinosauricon-related    <dinosaur@dinosauricon.com>
     AOL Instant Messenger   <Ric Blayze>
      ICQ                     <77314901>
       Yahoo! Messenger        <Mighty Odinn>