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

RE: SVP Preview

Mickey Mortimer wrote: 

> Wilson re-rexamined Titanosaurus and finds only T. araukanicus
> (Laplatasaurus) and T. colberti valid.  I generally don't like rampant
> nomina-dubiizing, and hope Wilson goes into detail about comparisons and
> reasoning when this is published.  

Not to pre-empt Wilson, but here the _nomina dubia_ might well be justified.
The taxonomy of the Lameta sauropod material is a frightful mess - as
revealed by a perusal of the relevant publications over the past
century-and-a-half (Falconer; Lydekker,; Huene and Matley (ugghh!!);
Swinton; Hunt &co; Chatterjee and Rudra; Jain and Bandyopadhay...)
Everybody has a different view on how the Lameta titanosaur material should
be sorted.  There's some superb braincases in that lot.

_T. colberti_, based on good material, was never happy in the genus
_Titanosaurus_.  _T. madagascariensis_, _T. blanfordi_ and _T. raholiensis_
have been recognized previously as _nomina dubia_.  However, I hold out some
hope for the type species, _T. indicus_.