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

Re: Cionodon kysylkumensis vs Bactrosaurus kysylkumensis




On Wed, 7 Jun 2000 20:35:21 +0200 "DinoData" <fb@dinodata.net> writes:
> In an email to the list Dr Holtz wrote in 1995 (arn't the lovely 
> those archives).. 
> Nessov, 1995, ....pp. 47-48, 51-52: _Bactrosaurus kyzylkumensis_ 
> comb. nov.Originally _Cionodon kyzylkumense_ Riabinin, 1931 (emended 
> to _Cionodon kyzylkumensis_ by Weishampel & Horner in _The 
> Dinosauria_) Lectotype: TsNIGR museum #1/3760, a dorsal vertebra 
> from upper Turonian or Coniacian, Dzhira-Khuduk, Uzbekistan, Bissekt 
> Formation (Bissektiyskaya Svita); maxilla, vertebrae, and a tooth 
> are also referable to this species // Ornithopoda, Lambeosauridae 
> (_sic_: called a subfamily in the text)
> 
> Q1
> 
> In my version of The Dinosauria its Cionodon kysylkumensis 
> (Riabinin, 1931), do I have a wrong verion of The Dinosauria?

I'm not sure.  I checked my 1992 version and it's "C." *kysylkumensis*
too, with an s instead of a z.  Glut's *Dinosaurs-The Encyclopedia* also
uses s instead of z.  It's probably just a misspelling.
 
> Q2
> 
> According to Nessov, 1995 to fossilsite is at Dzhira-Khuduk, 
> Uzbekistan, Bissekt Formation (Bissektiyskaya Svita), however I have 
> two different fossilsites in two diferent countries: Beleutinskaya 
> Svita, Navoiskaya Oblast, , Uzbekistan and  Dabrazinskaya Svita, 
> Sydarninskaya Oblast, Kazakhstan and not the one mentioned by 
> Nessov.
> 
> 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 actually the same as named by 
> Nessov? Or are the described fossil(s) by Nessov also described by 
> Riabinin in the same paper?

Well, Glut says this: "The species... was founded on a fragmentary left
dentary, four vertebrae, and a tibia from Djira-Kuduk, and two caudal
vertebrae from the shores of Lake Khodja-Kul, Sultan-uis-dag, (of
Turonian or Cenomanian age), Amu-Daria River, Kysyl-Kum Desert,
Russia...after which Nessov (1995), following the collection of new
material from "Northern Eurasia," referred this species to
*Bactrosaurus*."

What I think happened: "Cionodon" *kysylkumensis* was based on material
from the locations cited in *The Dinosauria* and Glut's encyclopedia. 
Later, Nessov described more material from one of the same sites
(Djira-Kuduk and Dzhira-Khuduk are probably just spelling variations). 

It sounds almost as if Nessov named the new material *Bactrosaurus
kysylkumensis* and then referred the material named "Cionodon"
*kysylkumensis* to it.  The two names appear to have different type
material (a single dorsal vertebra is described as the lectotype of *B.
kysylkumensis*, while Glut indicates a dentary is part of the holotype of
"C." *kysylkumensis*).  Either that, or the lectotype of *B.
kysylkumensis* came from the holotype of "C." *kysylkumensis*.

Even though the material cited is dubious, I'd keep it all together under
either generic name (unless they actually are different
taxa).-*Thescelosaurus*    
 
> Any help would be welcome.
> 
>  Regards
> 
> Fred Bervoets
> 
> fb@dinodata.net
> http://www.dinodata.net/
> 

---------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Tweet, *Thescelosaurus*
See "Thescelosaurus!": http://personal2.stthomas.edu/jstweet/index.htm

________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.