Hubbry Logo
ClaorhynchusClaorhynchusMain
Open search
Claorhynchus
Community hub
Claorhynchus
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Claorhynchus
from Wikipedia

Claorhynchus
Temporal range: Late Cretaceous, 69–68 Ma
Scientific classification Edit this classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Reptilia
Clade: Dinosauria
Clade: Ornithischia
Genus: Claorhynchus
Cope, 1892[1]
Species:
C. trihedrus
Binomial name
Claorhynchus trihedrus
Cope, 1892

Claorhynchus (meaning "broken beak", as it is based on broken bones from the snout region) is a dubious genus of cerapodan dinosaur with a confusing history behind it. It has been considered to be both a hadrosaurid and a ceratopsid, sometimes the same as Triceratops, with two different assignments as to discovery formation and location, and what bones make up its type remains.

History

[edit]

The holotype specimen, AMNH 3978, was described by American paleontologist Edward Drinker Cope in 1892, who interpreted it as the rostral bone and predentary of a member of Agathaumidae from the Laramie Formation of Colorado.[1] It was reinterpreted as a hadrosaurid, though, by American paleontologist John Bell Hatcher in 1902 and removed as a ceratopsid.[2][3] In 1904, Franz Baron Nopcsa reclassified it as a ceratopsid.[4] In their influential monograph, Richard Swann Lull and Nelda E. Wright regarded the genus as a dubious type of hadrosaurid, based on premaxillae and a predentary.[5]

This opinion stood until the work of Michael K. Brett-Surman, who stated in his dissertation that, having rediscovered and reexamined the material with Douglas A. Lawson, it was most likely part of a ceratopsid's neck frill, probably part of the squamosal of Triceratops.[6] This information reached Donald F. Glut's series of dinosaur encyclopedias in a confusing form; its entry states that a squamosal and tooth from South Dakota were referred to the genus, and these are what Brett-Surman and Lawson identified, keeping the supposed beak remains separate.[7] Additionally, other major reviews have left the genus as an indeterminate hadrosaurid.[8][9]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.