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

Re: Trachodon?




> 
> The name was originally given to a single tooth.  This tooth
> is what is called the type specimen.  The rules require that the
> name refers to *at* *least* this one specimen.

Could this similiar situation be compared to the Apatosaur\Brontosaur 
names. Wasn't Brontosaurus named to the specimine with the 'homemade'
type skull and Apatosaurus refered to the specimine w\o the skull and 
with the correct skull,
What I'm attempting to say is didn't Marsh named the false skull 
Brontosaurus and the true skull is really Apatosaurus
I hope that this makes some sort of sense?

Aaron Feuk
Preparator,Dept. of Earth Sciences 
Pacific Lutheran University
Tacoma, Wa, 98498


> Now, unfortunately, 
most hadrosaurs ("duck-billed dinosaurs") have
> similar teeth.  This means that the Trachodon is formally indeterminate,
> there is no way of telling which hadrosaur it *really* belongs to.
> In formal taxonomic terms it is a "nomen dubium", or "doubtful
> name". Thus the name Trachodon properly speaking only applies to this
> one tooth, and to nothing else.  (The structure of the tooth tends
> to suggest that it was a *crested* hadrosaur, so it is extrememly
> unlikely to belong to the flat-headed hadrosaur usually labeled
> "Trachodon" in the older picures anyway - I currently list Trachodon
> as Lambeosauridae incertae sedis).
> 
> Due to some other complex nomenclatural developments, the species
> that used to be labeled "Trachodon" is now properly called Anatotitan.
> In books of intermediate age you may see it labeled Anatosaurus,
> which it turns out cannot be used either, for diferent reasons.
> 
> swf@elsegundoca.attgis.com            sarima@netcom.com
> 
> The peace of God be with you.
>