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


In a message dated 95-10-30 12:18:58 EST, dwn194@soton.ac.uk (D.W.Naish)

>I would have thought that Aublysodontinae wins priority over
>plus it is more user-friendly. Why revert to the latter then George?

There are problems with basing family names on doubtful genera; the family
Aublysodontidae is as much as nomen dubium as the genus _Aublysodon_, just as
_Aublysodon_ is a nomen dubium because its type species _Aublysodon mirandus_
is. _Shanshanosaurus_ is a valid genus, and Dong Zhiming's Shanshanosauridae
is next in line priority-wise for the family.

By the way, Dong only mentions, but does not illustrate, D-shaped
premaxillary teeth for _Shanshanosaurus_. Until they're ilustrated, I can't
verify this with complete certainty. The rest of _Shanshanosaurus_ looks like
a small tyrannosaurid, so he's probably right.

The New Mexico shanshanosaurid is quite large, about 9m or so, and was
described by Lehman & Carpenter a couple of years ago. It has big
"aublysodon" premaxillary teeth in association with the postcrania.