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

Re: Kritosaurus?



In a message dated 7/27/00 9:24:45 PM EST, dinoguy@interlog.com writes:

<< The sign says Kritosaurus incurvimanus and there are no quotation marks.  
I was confused, however, by the fact that a cast of this specimen is on 
display at the Tyrrell as Gryposaurus notibilis and there is another specimen 
there (not nearly as complete) labelled Kritosaurus incurvimanus. How can the 
type specimen be a junior synonym, yet there is another specimen? >>

Some people still think Kritosaurus is a valid genus, and it is in fact the 
genus in which the species "Gryposaurus" incurvimanus was originally 
described. That's why you'll see it labeled Kritosaurus incurvimanus. Some 
people consider Kritosaurus incurvimanus to be a junior synonym of 
Gryposaurus notabilis, which is why a cast of the type skeleton might be 
labeled with this species name. Some people think the species "Gryposaurus" 
incurvimanus belongs to a distinct hadrosaur genus, as yet undescribed. Hence 
the quotation marks around the generic name, one way of denoting a temporary 
or problematic referral of a species to a genus. And finally, of course, 
there's always the possibility that some display specimens have simply been 
mislabeled. (Naw...never happens, right?)