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

Re: Cionodon kysylkumensis vs Bactrosaurus kysylkumensis

Fred Bervoets wrote:

Do all finds named Cionodon kysylkumensis by Riabinin in 1939 thus the Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan fall under B. kysylkumensis or are the Kazakhstan fossils stil fal under Cionodon and is the name of the fossilsite I have from Uzbekistan actualy the same as named by Nessov? Or are the described fossil(s) by Nessov also described by Riabinin in the same paper?

_Cionodon_ is a genus founded upon a fragmentary maxilla from Colorado (type species _C. arctataus Cope, 1874). The material is indeterminate (Hadrosauridae indet.) and the genus is best regarded as a _nomen dubium_.

_Bactrosaurus_ is an Asian genus and _Cionodon_ is a North American genus, so becuase _Cionodon kysylkumensis _ Riabinin, 1931 is based on material found in Asia (Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan), some researchers have preferred to refer this species to _Bactrosaurus_ rather than _Cionodon_. But it's just rearranging deckchairs on a submarine - unless there has been research published to the contrary, the name _C. kysylkumensis_ is best sunk as a _nomen dubium_, thereby removing the need to refer this species to any other genus.

Tim ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com