[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Use of Genera
T. Michael Keesey wrote-
> I have decided to place all non-neornithean dinosaurs in six genera:
> _Iguanodon_, _Megalosaurus_, _Hylaeosaurus_, _Cetiosaurus_,
> _Archaeopteryx_. Expect to see binomina like _Iguanodon horridus_,
> _Megalosaurus rex_, _Cetiosaurus excelsus_, _Archaeopteryx regalis_, etc.
> Gone will be the unproductive arguments about whether to synonymize
> _Tarbosaurus_ and _Tyrannosaurus_, _Ornithomimus_ and _Struthiomimus_,
> all _Megalosaurus_ now.
> Still got to figure out how to handle trivial homonyms (is _M. rex_ the
> tyrannosaurid, the basal theropod, or the basal tetanuran?). Perhaps I'll
> convert old genera (_Megalosaurus alwalkeria_, _Megalosaurus edmarka_,
> Working on the changes now; expect to see them in a few weeks. Any
Unless some of your genera are paraphyletic, there's lots of species that
won't fit into them. Like diagnosticus Galton 1978, antiquus Morris 1843
and nasicornis Marsh 1884. Indeed, pretty much every non-genasaurian,
non-sauropodomorph (sensu stricto), and non-megalosauroid+avetheropod.
Also, it would be Archaeopteryx rex, as rex Osborn 1905 is more closely
related to lithographica Meyer 1861 than to bucklandi Mantell 1827. Of
course, even the use of Archaeopteryx would be inappropriate, as Vultur was
named before. So unless you want the horror of a lot more genera, it should
be Vultur rex. This means you can still have Megalosaurus rex and Aliwalia
rex, but we'd need a new name for rex Shufeldt 1915, the anseriform.