tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post2149848710427115200..comments2024-03-17T01:48:59.504-07:00Comments on The Theropod Database Blog: Pickering's taxa 4: Merosaurus newmaniMickey Mortimerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08831823442911513851noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post-85171091295882857662023-03-02T06:30:37.294-08:002023-03-02T06:30:37.294-08:00I'd say there are some important differences- ...I'd say there are some important differences- in distal view "Merosaurus" has a concave anterior femoral edge; in proximal view the cnemial crest of "Merosaurus" is shorter and curved more laterally; the fibula of "Merosaurus" has a more posteriorly and anterodorsally expanded proximal end.Mickey Mortimerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08831823442911513851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post-36689519652700626832023-03-01T11:44:21.602-08:002023-03-01T11:44:21.602-08:00Hi Micky, I was wondering if it were possible to t...Hi Micky, I was wondering if it were possible to test if Sarcosaurus and Merosaurus could be the same thing?TCWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13188796993407645950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post-31204133151667270082010-04-29T09:28:11.439-07:002010-04-29T09:28:11.439-07:00Science is hypothesis testing. Describing bones is...Science is hypothesis testing. Describing bones isn't hypothesis testing. It's a necessary first step for paleo science, sure, but it most certainly is not science at the "high table."Jussumguynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post-83536960866061956412010-04-22T11:06:55.506-07:002010-04-22T11:06:55.506-07:00Shalom & good morning, Jussumguy. Your stateme...Shalom & good morning, Jussumguy. Your statement is illogical and, to be frank, its components are self-imploding. To be polite, re-read what you state, because you do not know what you are talking about.<br />Kol tuv uv'racha. <br />STEPHAN PICKERING / Chofetz Chayim ben-Avraham<br />The Dinosaur Fractals ProjectStephan Pickeringnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post-54928656048678121502010-04-22T07:07:16.079-07:002010-04-22T07:07:16.079-07:00Assembling hypodigms and describing anatomy doesn&...Assembling hypodigms and describing anatomy doesn't constitute science, Stephan. Especially not science "at the high table."Jussumguy.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post-31927323442719616092010-04-17T23:42:10.615-07:002010-04-17T23:42:10.615-07:00Mickey: I mailed to you this past Monday, along wi...Mickey: I mailed to you this past Monday, along with various papers and my annotated Richard Owen bibiography published in 2003, the 11 page Merosaurus newmani paper (published in a run of 50 copies in 1995). <br /><br />Based upon the evidence, Sam and I made the hypodigm Ceratosauria incertae sedis.<br /><br />The type: GSM 109560, right femur. This is very similar to Sarcosaurus, and is of the same diagnostic patterns as Ceratosaurus and Dilophosaurus in the nearly straight cranial edgte, the concave popliteal notch, and the elliptical, caudolaterally oriented ectocondyle. The anterior trochanter is a blunt cone vs. the diagnostic flat blade of Megalosauridae, and is (as is the 4th trochanter) positioned at the shaft's centre vs. at the lateral edge...and for these characters Merosaurus is a probable ceratosaur. Compared with Sarcosaurus woodi BMNH R4841 (C. Andrews 1921, fig. 2; von Huene 1932A, pl. 2 fig. 3), the head is curved more strongly inward. The anterior trochanter is similarly conical, but lacks the trochanteric shelf. The 4th trochanter is concave medially vs. straight, and nearer the shaft centre.<br /><br />We tentatively referred GSM 109561 to the hypodigm, but I shall be altering this in light of your comments.<br /><br />The referred specimen (right knee region)BMNH 39496 has a nearly straight cranial edge, a concave popliteal notch, and an elliptical, caudolaterally oriented condyle -- features similar to, although differing in details, Ceratosaurus USNM 4735 (Gilmore 1920B, fig. 64) and Dilophosaurus UCMP 37302 (Welles 1984, fig. 32). The distal end of Sarcosaurus woodi is crushed, making comparisons useless, although as preserved GSM 109560 is more like Sarcosaurus than any known British theropod. As you will note when you see the paper, we have numerous photographs of the hypodigm. You are mistaken, Mickey, in your contention GSM 109560's anterior trochanter is not a blunt cone. Sam's notes, his photographs, are rather clear.<br />BMNH 39496's distal femur is 144 mm wide x 114 mm craniocaudall at the entocondyle. This is exactly the restored width of GSM 109560, and, for this reason (among others), Sam Welles believed BMNH 39496 likely the same individual as 109560. Unless you can present photographic evidence and careful cross-examinations of the specimens, which Sam conducted and I published, then the hypodigm stands. Merosaurus newmani remains a valid taxon.<br />As you will further note, Merosaurus newmani WAS published by us. <br /><br />Compared with Eustreptospondylus OUM J13558, the tuberosity is more strong developed. The proximal condyles project more caudally, and they are divided by a deep popliteal notch. The two are quite different.<br />Newman did note the size-related apomorphies of BMNH 39496 to BMNH 31808, part of the hypodigm of Metriacanthosaurus bevis (Owen 1857A, pl. 9 figs. 1-3; B. Newman 1968, pl. 8 figs. 2 & 12), especially in the great development of the tuberosity. The condyles and the proximal ends are similar.<br />As I have said, this is dinosaur science at the 'high table', Mickey.<br />Kol tuv uv'racha. Stephan<br />The Dinosaur Fractals ProjectStephan Pickeringnoreply@blogger.com