[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Some corrections to the large predator list

>From: Tom Holtz <tholtz@geochange.er.usgs.gov>

 >  Dan Chure (the
 > paleontologist at the Dinosaur National Monument) has shown many characters
 > which differ between species of Allosaurus and Saurophagus.  From what I've
 > seen of the material, S. maximus might be more closely related to
 > Acrocanthosaurus than to Allosaurus.

Hmm, interesting.  That's good information to have.
 > [Epanterias, by the way, is an invalid name, since the holotype material
 > includes both allosaurid theropod and camarasaurid sauropod fossils.  Thus,
 > like Trachodon (whose type specimen is composed of teeth of hadrosaurids
 > and ceratopsids), Epanterias must be thrown out.]
By my understanding of the Code, this is not quite correct.
This falls under the compisite type material section, which allows
a reviser to declare which subset of the original type material
is to be considered the actual type.  Thus, Epanterias either
becomes a allosaurid OR a camarasaurid, depending on what the
first reviser decides to do with the type material.  [Given the
way the literature has treated it, the best choice is clearly to
choose the allosaurid teeth as the type].

Either way, it sounds as if it is not synonymous with Saurophagus.

swf@elsegundoca.ncr.com         sarima@netcom.com

The peace of God be with you.