Short post, this one on an image I prepared but did not include in my post on Masiakasaurus knopfleri‘s “new” skull.
The numbers refer to the changes that I made between the two skull models when comparing the original reconstruction to coelophysids and little guys like Limusaurus inextricabilis.
1, proportion and shape of the premaxilla. 2, size of the premaxillary teeth (larger than the maxillary teeth, to correspond to the larger rostral dentary teeth than distal teeth). 3, position and shape of the lacrimal, especially as the implied shape of the lacrimal is based on an incomplete specimen. 4, the jugal, rather than deep and triangular is shallow and spindly. 5, surangular shallower and not deep, to correspond to the large size of the external mandibular fenestra. 6, caudal extend and thus size of the angular, which was a lot shorter as in Carrano et al.’s.
Thus, a more delicate, yet also seemingly robust skull of a noasaurid.
[As mentioned in the comments to the earlier post, there are still some errors to work out, so it’s probably not going to be “fixed” for a little while.]