[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: LAMBEOSAUR CLASSIFICATION
In a message dated 97-05-18 03:10:00 EDT, Tetanurae@aol.com writes, quoting
<< Jeremy Frost wrote:
<Bactrosaurus, IMHO, is much better known than Tsintaosaurus.
Parasaurolophus should have its own family.>
Yes, in your opinion.... Almost nothing is known of _Bactrosaurus_' skull,
which is really what is diagnostic about lambeosaurs past deciding if they
are lambeosaurs or hadrosaurs. _Tsintaosaurus_ on the other hand has a
fairly good skull, and associated postcrania. >>
There are still problems disentangling the type material of _Tsintaosaurus_,
as well as a dispute about the position and orientation of its crest.
<< <I'm sorry if you disagree, but these stuffy lamebrained Ivy League types
have classifying these animals don't know their butts from a hole in the
This is absolutely unneeded. If you can't offer constructive criticism
without offering unprovoked insults, I'll show you the door.>>
Agreed. There's no love lost between me and Ivy League types, but most of
them do good work and do not warrant stupid, blatant insults of the kind
offered by Frost.
<< <if they haven't figured out yet that they need to classify the said
by their CREST SHAPE.>
This only really works on the small scale, like telling the difference
between _Hypacrosaurus stebingeri_ and _H. altispinus_. Remember these
things were used for making the animals look sexy, so it is probable that
closely related groups had strikingly different crest shapes. Something
I think is rather interesting is the possibility that _Parasaurolophus_ and
_Lambeosaurus_ are closely related, as they both share a greatly reduced
external nasal bone, compared to the giant nasal in _Corithosaurus_ and
_Hypacrosaurus_, which might represent the plesiomorphic state for advanced
Based on postcranial anatomy as well as cranial, _Bactrosaurus_,
_Parasaurolophus_, and _Tsintaosaurus_ (the lambeosaurid portion, anyway)
seem to form a clade within Lambeosauridae, as do _Lambeosaurus_,
_Corythosaurus_, and _Hypacrosaurus_. Might be worth coining a subfamily
Parasaurolophinae for the former; in that case, the Code mandates
Lambeosaurinae for the latter.
<< <If that occurred, yes, there would be a Lambeosaurinae family, and
Tsintaosaurus and Lambeosaurus would all be in it (if there's more than one
species of each).> >>
You mean Lambeosauridae. The -inae suffix denotes a subfamily.
Jack Horner proposed creating Lambeosauridae in the Dinosaur Systematics
volume years ago. I still agree with him.
<< In my opinion also, there should be a lambeosaur family that is seperate
the hadrosaur family. I also think (I know, me, the heretic) that
_Hadrosaurus_ itself should be made a _nomen dubium_ and the hadrosaur
should be renamed Edmontosauridae.>>
For this family, Saurolophidae is the next available family-level name based
on an undoubtedly valid genus.
Take a look at Horner's 1992 _Prosaurolophus_ monograph.
<< One more thing, _Lambeosaurus_ should be said "LAM-o-saurus" since
Lawrence Lambe almost certainly said his name like "LAM" and not "LAM-bee".
This extends to Lambeosauridae - "LAM-o-saur-i-die", and lambeosaur -
In combining forms, one often revives silent letters for euphony.