Re: citipati and rebbachisaurus

[Dino Guy and Computer Gal <gbabcock@best.com>]

david van zant wrote:

> does anyone know which pictures of oviraptor
> philoceratops belongs to citipati, which is the main
> difference between them.

The type specimen of _Oviraptor philoceratops_, discovered by the AMNH team in 
the
1920's in association with a clutch of eggs (thought to be _Protoceratops_ eggs,
but now believed to have been its own eggs), retains its original name.  It is 
not
particularly well preserved, being badly eroded, but it is an articulated 
specimen
useful in determining general characteristics of the body plan.  Earlier
restorations of _Oviraptor_, (John Sibbick's _Oviraptor_ in Norman's _The
Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs_, for instance) were based on this 
specimen.

The oviraptorosaur that people think of today as _Oviraptor philoceratops_, that
illustrated by Gregory S. Paul in _Predatory Dinosaurs of the World_ and _The
Dinosaur Society Dinosaur Encyclopedia_ among many, many other sources and by 
John
Sibbick in _National Geographic_ magazine (there depicting a parent feeding a
small theropod to its young), is now referred to the new taxon, _Citipaati
osmolskae_.  It is known from an excellent skull with a short powerful beak and 
a
distinctive casque (something like a Cassowary casque), and from the "brooding
oviraptor" specimen.  The skeleton associated with the type _Citipati_ skull is
being prepared at AMNH, and has not yet been described.

I apologize for the generalized nature of this letter, but I don't have the time
to detail the osteological differences reported in the recent JVP paper, and, 
not
being a specialist, I don't wish to misinterpret the authors' work.  Suffice it 
to
say that the authors found sufficient grounds for separating the two into
different genera and species.

Hopefully my post will be of some assistance.

-- Ralph W. Miller III   ralph.miller@alumni.usc.edu