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

Megalosaurus and Titanosaurus

Alessandro Marisa wrote:

> Allain and Chure examine also the synonymy between Poekilopleuron and 
> Megalosaurus and conclude that Megalosaurus is a nomen dubium and that 
> the name should be restricted to the type dentary. 

Damn - another one bites the dust.  Though I had thought the type dentary
for _Megalosaurus buklandii_ was diagnostic at the genus level.  Let's see
what Rauhut has to say.

On the subject of potential nomina dubia, Dinogeorge@aol.com wrote (in
response to Darren Naish):

> >Firstly, re: definition of _Titanosaurus_, George urged Tim to
> > a diagnosis of the type species. Given that Jeff Wilson and Paul 
> > Upchurch are presently working on a review of _Titanosaurus_, this
> > not such a good idea. As Tim will be the first to admit, Wilson 
> > and Upchurch might have seen just a _little bit_ more 
> > sauropod material than Tim has. >>
> Well, it's always a good idea to get a second opinion.

To reiterate what Darren said, and to clear up any misconceptions, I
have no intention of publishing a diagnosis of _Titanosaurus_ - or any
other dinosaur material that I haven't clapped eyes on.  What I do have
is a summary of the always murky, often bewildering and occasionally
amusing taxonomic history of the species _T. indicus_.  I'm not surprised
that the genus _Titanosaurus_ causes so much confusion; no two studies seem
to agree on its status and composition.  I look forward to seeing what
Wilson and Upchurch have to say; I've been dead impressed with their work in
the past.