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

Re: Majungatholus: Apparent Cannibal

Jaime Headden wrote-

>    Okay, let me get this straight, they are now contending that there was
> only ONE species of large abelisaurid in the Maeverano Formation? The
> authors (Krause et al., 1998) went to some length to show how the type of
> *Majungasaurus cranatissimus* was a _nomen dubium_, and likely not the
> same species as their new recovery of skull and postcranial material of
> *Majungatholus atopus*.

Actually, Sampson et al. (1998) did not go to any length to show
Majungasaurus was not an individual of Majungatholus.  They simply said the
former was indeterminate (unlike Majungatholus' holotype), so could not be
the holotype of a valid species.
"Although large theropod materials from the Maevarano Formation have
generally been referred to Majungasaurus crenatissimus, the inadequacy of
the holotype and neotype specimens requires that
this taxon be regarded as a nomen dubium."
"The original theropod materials recovered from the Maevarano Formation,
including isolated teeth and
caudal vertebrae, were assigned to Megalosaurus crenatissimus. However, no
single holotype specimen
was named from this collection, and none of the specimens appear to be
diagnostic to the generic level. A partial dentary was subsequently made the
holotype of the species and was placed into a new genus, Majungasaurus.
However, comparison of the latter specimen with dentaries of other
abelisaurids failed to reveal diagnostic characters. The jaw is fragmentary,
and the dentition does not appear to differ significantly from that in the
Indian abelisaurid materials."
I'm not aware of any "Krause et al. 1998" publication, nor of the published
suggestion of more than one Maevarano abelisaurid.

Mickey Mortimer