Re: Shuvosaurus, first impressions

["Jaime A. Headden" <qilongia@yahoo.com>]

David Peters (davidrpeters@earthlink.net) wrote:

<I just had my first look at Shuvosaurus, care of D. Glut's Dinosaur
Encyclopedia. While I haven't performed a cladistic analysis on it, a quick run
through my catalog of Triassic diapsids narrows sister candidates down to
Ticinosuchus. If you use the venerable Krebs illustration of Ticinosuchus you
won't or may not see the similarities. Rather, reconstruct a new skull from the
insitu specimen (complete but rather cracked up) and hopefully it will all come
together.>

  Rauhut has a paper on it arguing that 1) Chatterjee is not correct in his
interpretation, 2) that the skull belongs to a dinosaur, not a non-dinosaurian
archosaur, and 3) that the skull is consistent with basal theropod dinosaurs
(and is probably a ceratosaur). For example, it lacks a postfrontal.

  Rauhut, O. 1997. _Zur Schädelanatomie von *Shuvosaurus inexpectatus*
   (Dinosauria, Theropoda)_ [On the cranial anatomy of *Shuvosaurus
   inexpectatus* (Dinosauria, Theropoda).]. In Sachs, S., O. W. M. Rauhut & A.
   Weigert (eds.) _Erstes Treffen der deutschsprachigen Palaeoherpetologen_,
   extended abstracts. _Terra Nostra_ 97(9):17-21.

  Cheers,

Jaime A. Headden

"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)


                
____________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Sports 
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football 
http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com