[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: What are these dinosaurs?
In a message dated 11/16/99 3:02:13 AM EST, email@example.com
<< While perusing the Dinosauricon, I noticed a few names that are apparently
nomina nuda and very old. What's the deal with-
Proiguanodon van der Broek, 1900>>
I believe the author's name is spelled van den Broeck.
Unfortunately, my copy of this paper is buried right now, but as I recall,
this would be a synonym of Iguanodon had it been properly proposed: a
suggested generic name for material referred to Iguanodon in case it turned
out the material represented a more primitive genus. I spotted it several
years ago when I first read the paper.
There is also a Proiguanodon Young, 1944, but that is a misspelling of
Protiguanodon, a synonym of Psittacosaurus.
<< Protrachodon Nopsca 1923>>
This is a synonym of Orthomerus. Nopcsa made up this name to give validity to
his earlier family-level name Protrachodontidae, which had no type genus.
Subsequently Abel (1919) and Huene (1929) reused Nopcsa's name in various
contexts, but spelled it Protrachodontinae and Protrachodontinidae,
respectively. None of these names has any scientific validity; they are
<< Tyreophorus Huene 1929>>
This is a misspelling of Thyreophora that became a nomen nudum genus in
Huene's monograph on South American dinosaurs. I think he intended to refer
some indeterminate ankylosaurian material to Thyreophora incertae sedis, and
that's how it came out in published form. Perhaps a problem in translating
the monograph into Spanish. Huene also acquired the genera Carnosaurus and
Coelurosaurus in ths paper the same way: indeterminate large theropod
material referred to Carnosauria incertae sedis and small theropod material
referred to Coelurosauria incertae sedis.
<< Also, does anyone know if the following are prosauropods or sauropods-
<< Dachongosaurus Chao 1985>>
This is some kind of cetiosaurid. The name is also spelled Dachungosaurus,
and it even has a species name, Dachungosaurus yunnanensis Chao, 1985.
<< Damalasaurus magnus/laticollis Chao 1986>>
This genus is supposed to be a brachiosaurid; the two included species may or
may not be synonyms. It's laticostalis, not laticollis, by the way, and the
year is 1985.
<< Lancanjiangosaurus Chao 1983>>
This is supposed to be another cetiosaurid: Lancanjiangosaurus cachuensis
Chao, 1985. Not to be confused with Lancangosaurus Dong, Zhou & Zhang, 1983,
a nomen nudum subsequently described as Datousaurus bashanensis Dong & Tang,
<< Megacervixosaurus Chao 1983>>
This is probably a mamenchisaurid or diplodocid with a long neck:
<< Microdontosaurus Chao 1983>>
This is some kind of melanorosaurid prosauropod: Microdontosaurus dayensis
<< Perhaps someone has seen a skeleton in a Chinese museum (I know they are
fond of doing this before the specimen is described) or heard something
about what exactly they are based on, where/when they are from and what they
appear to be. >>
All these taxa appeared in Chao's infamous 1983 paper in Acta Palaeontologica
Polonica on dinosaur evolution. He included about a dozen new genera whose
definitions and descriptions were said to be "in press," but the document
they were to appear in (the published version of Chao's doctoral dissertation
on Tibetan dinosaurs and their relationships) was rejected by the IVPP as
unpublishable and has not yet been rewritten/corrected and resubmitted. Chao
has probably given up on it. All the names therein are nomina nuda, but a few
have apparently been described subsequently, either by Chao or by other
workers, some under other names. Chao subsequently used many of those names
and a couple of new ones, and even gave species names to most of his 1983
genera without species names, in articles on Jurassic and Cretaceous Chinese
biostratigraphy in 1985 (not 1986: same book, two different articles). There
are photos and figures of some of this material in the 1985 work.