[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Rauhut and Xu on Tugulusaurus and Phaedrolosaurus
Jaime Headden wrote:
The authors consider the leg to be
diagnostic and comparable to other species, establishing the new taxon
*Xinjiangovenator parvus*. There are some problems I am having with this,
however, including the establishment of taxa based on a single
I am taking a closer, critical look.
To play devil's advocate: What is wrong with establishing a taxon upon a
single autapomorphy? As long as a genus or species has ONE character that
can be used to distinguish it from any other genus or species, it is valid
in my book. _Archaeopteryx_ has precious few autapomorphies (maybe only
one), but it is indisputably a valid genus.
I would go further and say that, even in the apparent absence of
autapomorphies, a unique combination of characters is enough to validate a
genus or species. For example, Rauhut recently upheld _Genyodectes_ as a
valid genus based upon the unique combination of characters displayed by the
jaw material, even though it had no autapomorphies.
BTW, I enjoyed these summaries of _Tugulusaurus_ and _Xinjiangovenator_ -
thanks Jaime. I don't have much confidence that _Xinjiangovenator_ and
_Bagaraatan_ form a separate clade of maniraptorans. I wonder how both
_Tugulusaurus_ and _Xinjiangovenator_ compare to _Yixianosaurus_?