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

Re: SVP Preview

Tim Williams wrote-

> Not to pre-empt Wilson, but here the _nomina dubia_ might well be
> 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
> be sorted.  There's some superb braincases in that lot.

Oh yes, some nomina dubia are warrented, especially given our current lack
of knowledge in some areas.  For example, a lot of theropod tooth taxa are
nomina dubia now, but I can't wait to see what impact Josh Smith's new work
will have on that.

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

Titanosaurus? madagascariensis is a good example.  The holotype is not nomen
dubium, as Curry Rogers and Forster (2001) state parts come from
Rapetosaurus, and parts from the new saltasaurine.  One of the latter taxa
should be kept as madagascariensis, the other given a new species name.
Just because a specimen is composite doesn't mean the taxon associated with
it should be forgotten.  Anyway, the single caudal vertebrae preserved in
the T. madagascariensis holotype were diagnostic enough to refer to the
proper taxa, why not those that make up T. indicus or T. blanfordi?  T.
rahiolensis is based on teeth of course, which have a very good chance of
being indeterminate.  Suppose I'll see at SVP.

Mickey Mortimer