[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 <email@example.com>
> 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.
The peace of God be with you.