[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
In a message dated 96-10-16 13:42:51 EDT, Tim Williams wrote:
> > For those attending the SVP, Peter has a cast of the specimen in
> > question. Provisionally called Magulodon muirkirkensis (Kranz,
> > 1996) and means Cheektooth of Muirkirk. It is figured in the
> > centennial volume, figure 11, page107 and is the only tooth of this
> > particular morphology found at the site to date.
> If this "enigmatic" tooth does indeed have a unique morphology
> compared to teeth found in ANY other site in the world, then there's
> no doubt that it deserves its own binomial.
Indeed. The general consensus among some the heavy hitters that I have spoken
with or had hear second hand (i.e. by Kranz) is that this _single_ tooth is
quite unique both locally among the Arundel remains but is also unique
among contemporaneous remains (Aptian) elsewhere in the US but I hesitate to
say the "world".
> I have no in-principal objection to giving new binomial names to teeth
> (or other remains) that are probably indeterminate, just for the sake
> of convenience. But there are those who would froth at the mouth at
> such a prospect.
That's good to hear for I believe that at least in the case of the Arundel
fauna, the overwhelming majority of remains collected thus far are
indeterminate, that the prospect of applying this method to other specimens
must now be given deep thought. I have now a good collection of theropod
teeth that are in the same boat taxionomically. Those that have looked at
them (some) have said that these too are unique. It has started me thinkng...
Thomas R. Lipka