Re: Shuvosaurus, first impressions

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

Tim Williams (twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com) wrote:

<Yep, Rauhut makes some really good points regarding _Shuvosaurus 
inexpectatus_.  From memory (and maybe this is from Rauhut's work, but I'm not
sure) there is a possibility that _Shuvosaurus_ and _Gojirasaurus_ are the same
theropod.  OK, so _Shuvosaurus_ was toothless, and _Gojirasaurus_ has a
trenchant tooth referred to it.  But the tooth might come from a different
animal (like a scavenger).  Also, a _Shuvosaurus_-like premaxilla (larger than
the type) has been reported from the same quarry that yielded _Gojirasaurus_,
although I can't recall the reference.  According to this same report, the
_Shuvosaurus_ type is probably juvenile.>

  Based on seeing the type skull, I feel that fractures in the maxilla rendered
the "maxilla" to be an extremely short bone, but in fact most of the
sub-antorbital ramus of the jugal may very well be the remaining maxilla. This
was from a photo, however, though a good one, and I cannot back this up with
personal examination of the skull. While it has also been suggested that the
skull of *Shuvosaurus* may be the head of *Chatterjeea*, this too appears to be
contradicted by the presence of associated cranial bits including teeth along
with diagnostic limb elements. *Chatterjeea*, for those unaware, is a
rauisuchian (a taxon based on limb material which now includes an ankle
morphology firmly anchoring it to the Crurotarsi).

  Cheers,

Jaime A. Headden

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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com