[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Bakker's Brontosaurus and Late Cretaceous populations
Mike Taylor wrote:
Just to be picky --
And just to be even pickier... :-)
_Cathetosaurus_ Jensen 1988 was indeed sunk into _Camarasaurus_ (as the new
species _C. lewisi_) by McIntosh et al. 1996,
...I think this synonymy was first done by Miller, McIntosh, Stadtman and
Anyways, there might be reason to quibble the referral of _Cathetosaurus
lewisi_ to _Camarasaurus_ (as _Camarasaurus lewisi_) given that the ilium of
_C. lewisi_ is reported to be angled somewhat upwards and forwards, as in
brachiosaurids and other titanosauriforms. This might be a synapomorphy it
shares with the titanosauriforms; or an autapomorphy of _C. lewisi_ within
_Camarasaurus_; or it may mean nothing at all. Having never seen the _C.
lewisi_ material, I am reluctant to comment on whether the ilium was tilted
upward in titanosauriform fashion.
If it seems odd that the brachiosaur "Ultrasauros" should be sunk into a
diplodocid, that's because Jensen inexplicably nominated a dorsal as the
holotype of "U." instead of the indisputably brachiosaurid scapula that is
most associated with that name.
And apparently, the "Ultrasaurus" scapula isn't really all that large...
The others you mentioned are less emphatic, though. The only published
attempt to synonymising _Seismosaurus_ Gilette 1991 with _Diplodocus_ (so
far as I know) is Lucas and Heckert (2000); and all they have to say is
"previously misrepresented as [...] a new genus,
_Seismosaurus_, but clearly not distinct from Diplodocus (B. Curtice, pers.
comm., 2000)". I'm not particularly convinced by a pers. comm. for that,
Nevertheless, Lucas and Heckert were convinced enough to cough up the new
combination _Diplodocus hallorum_.
and apparently Gillette is readying a defence of _Seismosaurus_, so I
suspect we've not seen the last of Sam.
Yeah!! Go Sam!
Curtice doesn't really commit himself one way or the other; and his
analysis has in any case now
been superseded by McIntosh's (2005) new _Barosaurus_ monograph, which
reaffirms the genus _Supersaurus_ as distinct from _B._
Yes, AFAIK the combination _Barosaurus vivianae_ has yet to be formally
proposed. I haven't seen or read McIntosh (2005), so thanks for the tip.
Hope that's helpful to someone out there.