[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: enigmatic tooth
In a message dated 96-10-16 13:42:51 EDT,
T.Williams@cclru.randwick.unsw.edu.au (Tim Williams) writes:
<< Thomas R. Lipka 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.
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. >>
I had a look at the cast of the tooth at the SVP last week. It seems to have
a lot in common with teeth that Bakker ascribes to _Drinker_, such as the
grouping of its denticles by threes along the carinae. Perhaps he should have
simply called it a species of _Drinker_, as in "_Drinker_ sp."