Therizinosauroid Humeri – WP#15


What you are about to see is a scaled set of humeri in lateral view of a restricted clade, Therizinosauroidea. Much has been made of this group, but the variation that persists on a species by species basis has never been fully realized. It is, for example, possible to discriminate these taxa based solely on their humeri.

Caption to the above:

A, Alxasaurus elesitaiensis, IVPP V9612;
B, Nothronychus mckinleyi, MSM P-2117;
C, a therizinosaur from Iren Dabasu, AMNH 6368, formerly referred to Alectrosaurus;
D, Erlikosaurus andrewsi, GI 100/111;
E, Therizinosaurus cheloniformis, GI 100/15;
F, Neimongosaurus yangi, LH V0001; G, Chilantaisaurus tashuikousensis, IVPP V2884.1;
H, Beipiaosaurus inexpectatus, IVPP V11559.

Update: It should be noted that Chilantaisaurus tahsuikouensis, as included above, is not a therizinosauroid but rather an allosauroid, and certainly not a coelurosaur like therizinosauroids are. It is included to compare to a large, unusual humerus from central Asia. This is also missing three other therizinosaur taxa which have known humeral material: Erliansaurus bellamanus, Falcarius utahensis, and Nothronychus graffami. Other therizinosauroids are not known from humeral material, and are not included, such as Segnosaurus galbinensis and Enigmosaurus mongoliensis [which may be Erlikosaurus andrewsi]. Thanks to Andrea Cau in comments for catching this lapse.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Biological Comparison, Paleontology and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Therizinosauroid Humeri – WP#15

  1. Andrea Cau says:

    _Chilantaisaurus tashuikouensis_ is probably not a therizinosaur but a neovenatorid (Benson and Xu, 2009; Benson et al. 2010).

    • Oh, yes, I am aware. When the illustration was done, prior to the description of Erliansaurus, I had done this as a comparison of known, available humeri. Today, I’d add Nothronychus graffami, Erliansaurus bellamanus, and Falcarius utahensis. But then, it was suggested that tashuikouensis was, in fact, related to therizinosauroids, due to the fact that there was doubt to the holotype’s taxonomic consistency. I forgot to add that, so my bad.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s