[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Saltasauridae (was Re: new titanosaur paper)
>>From Sereno (1998 N. Jb. Geol. Palaont. Abh. 210: 41-83):
>Saltasauridae = Opisthoceolicaudinae + Saltasaurinae.
>p. 72: "Although not based on diversity, morphology or tradition, a
>saltasaurid NST stabilizes the higher taxonomy of derived titanosaurs, and
>supplants use of the taxon "Titanosauridae," which is not based on a valid
I wonder if anyone has thought to petition the ICZN to have _T. indicus_
suppressed as the type species of _Titanosaurus_ and replaced by (say) _T.
colberti_ - like what Charig and Chapman (1998) have proposed for having
_Iguanodon anglicus_ declared a nomen dubium and making _I. bernissartensis_
the type species of _Iguanodon_. I think it was also done with
_T. colberti_ as described by Jain and Bandyopadhyay (1997) is based upon a
fairly decent, diagnostic skeleton. _T. indicus_, on the other hand, is
based on two scrappy tail vertebrae. _Titanosaurus_ is a fairly well-known
(popularly) and well-loved genus, and I think it should be saved. (It would
also give some stability to sauropod higher taxonomy.) Other genera which
were named from scrappy and often nondiagnostic type material have been
salvaged in this sort of way, like _Allosaurus_ and _Coelophysis_.