Re: Amazing Tendaguru and the most prolific localities in the world

[Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

Mike Taylor wrote:

> At this stage, I would welcome a contribution from someone who knows
> what they're talking about :-)

Hey, don't look at me.  I just BS, and hope somebody takes me seriously.  
:-)

> > The femur from SII is incomplete.
>
> Yes.  I've seen it described as such many times, but never read any
> detailed statement of what the damage is and how it affects the
> measurable length.

Maybe Heinrich (1999) can help out, in lieu of finding Janensch's original 
paper.  The cartoon of the arrangement of the SII elements in the field may 
provide a loose guide to how much of the femur was intact.

Interestingly, some of the brachiosaur limb elements are preserved in such a 
manner that suggests that the animals were mired in the mud, and died where 
they stood!

> (BTW., I seem to
> recall reading somewhere that the more recent _Dicraeosaurus_, may be
> more closely related to _Amargasaurus_ than to its apparent ancestor
> _D. hansemanni_.  I don't recall the details, though.)

Yep, you are absolutely correct.  This is from Salgado (1999) - although he 
does not actually erect the new combination _Amargasaurus sattleri_.

Salgado, L.( 1999). The macroevolution of the Diplodocimorpha (Dinosauria; 
Sauropoda): a developmental model. Ameghiniana 36: 203-216.

> However, now that I check my Russell et al. 1980, I see that their
> Table II (page 171) shows (from oldest to youngest) one
> _Brachiosaurus_ individual known from the "Base, Middle Saurian Bed",
> 26 from the Middle Saurian Bed, three from the Lower Transitional
> Sands, four from the the Upper Transitional Sands and ... [drum-roll]
> NONE from the Upper Saurian Bed.  That is of course in conflict with,
> for example, Christian and Heinrich's (1998)

I would think it would also contradict Janensch's work!

Cheers

Tim