Re: Nemegtian tyrannosaurs

["Mickey Mortimer" <Mickey_Mortimer111@msn.com>]

Jaime Headden wrote-

> And contrary to an earlier
> statement, referral of *Aublysodon* to *T. rex* was based on the
> postcranial and cranial material, rather than just the type. This may
> merely allow the type to be pulled with the rest, but one should abhor
> referral of tooth types beyond a general group rather than any species.

The holotype of Aublysodon is an indeterminate lost premaxillary tooth,
which is not contemporaneous with Tyrannosaurus rex.  Other material (eg.
LACM 28471) cannot be properly referred to such an indeterminate taxon, so
the referral of Aublysodon to Tyrannosaurus rex is not defendable.  I'm
unaware of any postcranial material that has been referred to Aublysodon
being shown to be Tyrannosaurus rex.  The only postcranial material referred
to Aublysodon I know of is OMNH 10131, which both lacks Aublysodon-type
teeth, and is now thought to be Daspletosaurus.

Mickey Mortimer