[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Segnosauria vs. Therizinosauria
<< Why couldn't we have stuck with Barsbold's
Saurornithoididae, which has a more stable genus as its name-bearer?
Because the ICZN said we couldn't, that's why. >>
No, it's because we now have more information about Troodon than when
Barsbold described Saurornithoididae.
Only because of a number of good specimens (like the _Stenonychosaurus
inequalis_ type material) were referred to _Troodon_. _Troodon_ was founded
upon isolated teeth. It may come to be that the teeth named _Troodon_ are
not diagnostic at the genus/species level (as happened for _Deinodon_ and
_Trachodon_). If so, it too gets flung into the abyss as a _nomen dubium_.
This possibility has been raised a few times (and I think once in a paper by
Tom Holtz - apologies if I'm mis-quoting; I'm going from memory). Should
this occur, we go back to calling this family the Saurornithoididae.
_Saurornithoides_ is based upon a reasonable specimen. _Troodon_ isn't. My
point is that it might have been easier back in the 1980's to retain the
name Saurornithoididae for this family, irrespective of the "new" _Troodon_
material that was being described at the time.
But, a rose is a rose, I guess...
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com