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


> Norman R. King  wrote:
> >If the material from Bernissart turns out to be different from Mantell's
> >Iguanodon, or if Mantell's Iguanodon is based upon plesiomorphic
> >characters, then I. bernissartensis will have to be reassigned to a new
> >genus, will it not, since the original concept will have lost any generic
> >content?  After all, look at what happened to Lagosuchus, and what almost
> >happened to Coelophysis.  How can we honor the concept of Iguanodon when

 Steve asked: 
> I remember reading what almost happened to Ceolophysis, but what happened to 
> Lagosuchus?  Can anybody fill me in on this?

The genus and species Lagosuchus talampayensis was erected by Romer 
on a very incomplete archosaurian skeleton; he also named  a second 
species, L. lilloensis, represented by  more complete and better 
preserved remains : the widely known reconstruction of 
'Lagosuchus' is based upon the  'Lagosuchus' lilloensis material. 
Bonaparte later considered L. lilloensis as a junior synonym to L. 
However, Paul Sereno restudied the specimens and came to the 
conclusion that the holotype of ''Lagosuchus' talampayensis possesses no 
autapomorphies and might even be a chimaera. The 'Lagosuchus' 
lilloensis material does have definite autapomorphies which are not 
preserved in the holotype of 'L' talampayensis.
Sereno regarded  the genus Lagosuchus and the species talampayensis 
as nomina dubia and transferred the species lilloensis to the new 
genus Marasuchus (Mara is a Patagonian
saltatory rodent, Sereno wanted to retain the original spirit of Romer's name).

See Sereno, JVP 14(1), 1994.

Pieter Depuydt