Re: Stenopelix valdensis

[Michael Lange <Michael.Lange@gmx.ch>]

Dear Micky,

thanks for the explanation. I think a restudy of the type specimen in 
Goettingen would be useful and a new postive cast (since only moulds of the 
bones are present) would eventually also bring new light into the story. I 
don't know if Sullivan did this or has ever seen the specimen itself. By the 
way, what are the autapomorphies of Stenopelix?

Best wishes from Switzerland,

Michael

-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Datum: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 20:41:41 +0000
Von: Michael Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com>
An: dinosaur@usc.edu
Betreff: RE: Stenopelix valdensis

> Michael Lange wrote-
> 
> >I heard that Sullivan has recently made Stenopelix an Ornithischia indet.
> >I've seen the specimen >myself some years ago on display at the small 
> >Geological Museum in Goettingen. The skull is not >present, but should
> have 
> >been preserved when the quarry workers found the skeleton (when I >recall
> >correctly). Still, its a nice and interesting specimen. What are the 
> >reasons why Sullivan says >its no Marginocephalian anymore.
> 
> Because few pachycephalosaurs preserve good postcrania, so he's far too 
> cautious about referring postcrania to the clade (if he can't prove that 
> most pachycephalosaurs had a trait, he considers the trait 'weak').
> Also he questioned the absence of pachycephalosaur postcranial 
> synapomorphies in outgroups, with no examples to show why he questions it.
> Finally, he likes Coombs (1979) outdated idea of pachycephalosaurs being
> an 
> ankylosaur sister group better, and Stenopelix lacks a pelvic character 
> those two clades share.  Needless to say, Yinlong nicely blows that
> proposed 
> relationship out of the water.
> So basically Sullivan's reasons are worthless and should not be given any 
> weight.
> 
> Mickey Mortimer
> 

-- 


Der GMX SmartSurfer hilft bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten zu sparen!
Ideal für Modem und ISDN: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/smartsurfer