From: "Mickey Mortimer" To: Subject: Re: Saurolophus Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 15:00:05 -0700If I remember correctly, Glut's Dinosaurs The Encyclopedia included an illustration of the ischium and indicated S. kryschtofovici was synonymous with S. angustirostris.
You wrote-
> Is Saurolophus kryschtofovici the same as S. angustirostris?
According to Norman and Sues (2001), it is based on a fragment of an ischium that is indeterminate.
Mandschurosaurus and the lambeosaurine Charonosaurus.I assume these hadrosaurs were from exposures of the "Tsagayanskayasvita" on the Chinese side of the Amur river, at Jiayin, and were formerly named Tanius. But on page 133 of The Dinosauria Weishampel indicated that S. kryschtofovici was not from the Tsagayan but from an unnamed unit in Heilongjiang, which also yielded "Albertosaurus periculosus" (?Tarbosaurus)and is considered of Nemegtian age by Lucas. Weishampel's source was Riabinin.
where Amurosaurus was found, but it was nearby as well.Amurosaurus is from Blagoveschensk and Kundur on the Russian side of the Amur, and is probably coeval with the Jiayin hadrosaurs but not S. kryshtofovici. -Tim
Mickey Mortimer
_________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com