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

Re: JP3 Trailer



Chris Ott wrote:

>>What does the destruction of type material do to the validity of the name
Spinosaurus?  For all we really know, Suchomimus could be the same critter.
Any thoughts?<<

Ideally, a *neotype* should be designated for _Spinosaurus_, if such material
exists and the type description is adequate to show that the neotype is in
fact congeneric (and conspecific). So, _Spinosaurus_ wasn't automatically
invalidated by the destruction of its type specimen. We have the same problem
with at least three mosasaur taxa, _Tylosaurus proriger_ (lost), _Clidastes
liodontus_ (apparently destroyed during WWII), and _Halisaurus onchognathus_
(apparently destroyed during WWII).

Synomy between _Suchomimus_ and _Spinosaurus_ would have to be demonstrated,
same as if the holotype hadn't been destroyed (I'm unfamiliar with the
specifics of these two genera, but I assume Sereno et. al. must have compared
_Suchomimus_ to the existing illustrations and written descriptions of
_Spinosaurus_ before establishing _Suchomimus_).

Caitlin R. Kiernan