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

Re: Dinosaur Genera List corrections #154



Zoe Heraklides wrote:

<But do Microraptor and Archaeoraptor share the _same_ type specimen? 
One is named from the counterslab of the other. Same individual, for
sure. But technically one could say that they have separate type
specimens.>

  The specimen # given is the same in both. Just on the other part of
this thread: The type specimen of *Sinosauropteryx* is the part (slab),
while the counterpart (counterslab) is catalogued in a different museum
(GMV 2123 and NIGP 127586, respectively).

<But if the slab bearing the tail vertebrae is the type specimen for 
Microraptor, and (as someone else on this list said) if these tail
vertebrae are undiagnostic, then the name Microraptor becomes a nomen
dubium and, as such, should be restricted to the tail vertebrae. The
Microraptor type specimen has a tail preserved on its slab. It isn't
missing a tail, unlike your example of the forelimbs being found
separate from the rest of the skeleton.>

  Olson's diagnosis was based on the lack of knowledge that the
specimen was more complete, slab and counterslab rather than just one
side, which included the type specimen. Xu et al have described the
remains, and shown that whether or not the tail is diagnostic, the rest
of the animal, including the skull and pelvis, are. If the tail belongs
to an animal that is more complete, then Xu et al's paper supplements
that of Olson's.

  At least, that's how this over-opinionated individual sees it :)


=====
Jaime A. Headden

  Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhr-gen-ti-na
  Where the Wind Comes Sweeping Down the Pampas!!!!

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
http://photos.yahoo.com/