ulna was stated to be isolated, and the proximal metatarsal comes from a
different locality. His second set of remains (cervical neural arch, two
dorsal vertebrae, sacrum, partial caudal vertebra, three manual unguals,
tibiae, distal fibula, proximal metatarsal, four pedal phalangeal
fragments)
apparently come from a single individual. While this could allow the
referral of some of the first set of remains to the same taxon, if the
first
set was completely disassociated, the humerus, ulna, pubis, femur and
metatarsal fragments would have no reason to be referred. Sereno et al.
only include unspecified vertebrae, a partial humerus and partial tibia in
the holotype of Spinostropheus. Incidentally, Lapparent did not designate
a
holotype, so Sereno et al. are the first to do such for the taxon as far as
I know. Perhaps they did further resrarch to discover the pubis, femur,
fibula and pedal elements were not associated with the rest of the first
set
of remains? Sereno et al.'s opinion on Lapparent's second set of remains
is
unknown. They only code Spinostropheus based on their new material, which
is unhelpful in determining their thoughts on Lapparent's material. I'll
have to e-mail Sereno to find out what the situation is, and will report
back what I discover. Incidentally, I have no problem with the new
specimen
and its homologs in Lapparent's material (the cervical photographed looks
similar, at least) being ceratosaurian.
But hey, at least he finally placed new material into an old poorly known
taxon, instead of nomen-dubiafying it and naming a new genus. :-)
Mickey Mortimer
Undergraduate, Earth and Space Sciences
University of Washington
The Theropod Database - http://students.washington.edu/eoraptor/Home.html