|
Post by Seijun on Jan 24, 2011 7:43:56 GMT
Ok, I wasn't sure. The Princeton Field Guide lists it as "Edmontosaurus aka Anatosaurus"
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Jan 24, 2011 13:36:00 GMT
There's another taxonomic mess going on there. Anyone remember "Trachodon"?
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Jan 25, 2011 0:45:27 GMT
There's another taxonomic mess going on there. Anyone remember "Trachodon"? Yes it was named after 7 hadrosaur teeth. Unfortunately all hadrosaur teeth are basically the same. Therefore it really never existed.
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Jan 25, 2011 0:48:33 GMT
There's another taxonomic mess going on there. Anyone remember "Trachodon"? Yes it was named after 7 hadrosaur teeth. Unfortunately all hadrosaur teeth are basically the same. Therefore it really never existed. Exactly, based on inadequate material so the name had to be dropped. I believe the Anatotitans on display in the AMNH were formerly referred to "Trachodon", while other "Trachodon" bits got assigned to a number of different genera including Edmontosaurus.
|
|
|
Post by Himmapaan on Jan 25, 2011 0:50:29 GMT
Your memory is something to be marvelled at, Mr Horridus...
Mine failed long ago. And is worsening by the day.
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Jan 25, 2011 0:52:49 GMT
Your memory is something to be marvelled at, Mr Horridus... Mine failed long ago. And is worsening by the day. I can remember all this nonsense, but I can't remember birthdays.
|
|
|
Post by Himmapaan on Jan 25, 2011 0:57:14 GMT
;D
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Jan 25, 2011 2:57:06 GMT
Marx made a figure for Trachodon and also Hadrosaurus.
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Jan 26, 2011 17:46:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Feb 7, 2011 15:26:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Feb 15, 2011 18:21:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Himmapaan on Feb 15, 2011 20:17:27 GMT
I keep having problems getting on to the blog.
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Feb 15, 2011 20:36:36 GMT
Dodgy server I'm afraid
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Feb 15, 2011 22:33:54 GMT
I like to think our content is too awesome for the server to bear.
|
|
|
Post by Seijun on Feb 15, 2011 22:35:06 GMT
You are probably right.
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Feb 22, 2011 20:39:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Seijun on Feb 22, 2011 22:28:30 GMT
Even in real photos it still looks like a badly-saved gif image.
|
|
|
Post by Himmapaan on Feb 23, 2011 15:17:49 GMT
I just thought I'd mention that I've just seen Scott Hartman's latest skeletal for Parasaurolophus, and he points out that the latest research suggests that the scapulae of hadrosaurs do sit quite low on the ribcage after all. Cog seems to have got it right in their Parasaurolophus, though perhaps more probably by accident than design, if their other skeletons are anything to go by?
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Feb 23, 2011 15:20:15 GMT
Scott's skeletal correlates well with Paul's, which is what I used for reference. The scapulae still appear to be set lower on the COG skeleton than in either skeletal. But hell, it's only six quid, I don't expect perfection
|
|
|
Post by Himmapaan on Feb 23, 2011 15:25:54 GMT
Hmmm, I don't know, I think it's more the steeper tilt of the neck vertebrae in the cog one which makes them look lower. The actual placement doesn't seem that different if you just look at the distance from the spine to the scapulae themselves. Not that it matters.
|
|