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

RE: Details on SVP 2002 Part 1 (Titanosaurus)



Mickey Mortimer wrote:

> Supposedly indeterminate species included T. indicus, T. blanfordi, T.
> falloti, T. lydekkeri, T. madagascariensis, T. nanus, T. rahiolensis(?),
> T. robustus(?) and T. valdensis.  T. falloti was previously referred to
> Tangvayosaurus, T. madagascariensis to Rapetosaurus and the new
> saltasaurine, and T. valdensis to Iuticosaurus.  It's things like this
> that make me doubt that all these taxa can be undiagnostic.  

Did they offer a verdict on _Antarctosaurus septentrionalis_?  (Referred to
its own genus _Jainosaurus_ in 1995, on rather dubious grounds).  

The status of the Lameta sauropod material is burdened by Huene and Matley's
(1933) confused taxonomy: sauropod bones were divided up into _T. indicus_
and _A. septentrionalis_ based on feeble arguments on overall size and
relative proportions of the elements.  If the two species are one and the
same (as advocated by Jain and Bandyopadhay in the _T. colberti_ paper),
then the combined taxon is probably valid.  Limited to the type material
(two less-than-perfectly-preserved caudals), _T. indicus_ is toast; but
there may be enough material that qualifies as topotypic to save the species
from the dreaded label of "nomen dubium".



Tim