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

Re: Dinosaur Genera List corrections #154




On Tue, 2 Jan 2001, 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 way I see it whatever catalogue numbers are given is irrelevant. If
the two names are attached to different parts of the same individual
then there is zero chance that they could be different species and one
name must be the objective synonym of the other.

> 
> 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.
> 

One thing people may not have noticed is that the tail of
Microraptor/Archaeoraptor IS diagnostic. No other dromaeosaurid (or
maniraptoran for that matter) has the elongated bony rods that stiffen
the tail going all the way up to the sacrum. There are usually five or
so free proximal caudals, in Micro/Archae there is at most one free
caudal.
There is no other option, Archaeoraptor must be supressed before it
gains currency.

cheers

Adam Yates