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

Re: Bakker's Brontosaurus and Late Cretaceous populations

Against the flow, heroic efforts have been made to reinstate _Brontosaurus_;
and I don't know what to make of _Eobrontosaurus_.

Hasn't someone just let it disappear in *Camarasaurus*...?

At the other end of the spectrum, there are genera that look rather 'lumpy', and perhaps (in some cases, definitely) deserve to split up into more than one genus: _Plateosaurus_, _Alamosaurus_, _Iguanodon_, _Probactrosaurus_, _Psittacosaurus_, _Euoplocephalus_, &c. This has already happened with _Chilantaisaurus_, _Dilophosaurus_ and _Titanosaurus_.

Do you mean *"Dilophosaurus" sinensis* has been renamed??? ~:-|

The process of breaking up European _Plateosaurus_ has already begun: one study spun off _Gresslyosaurus_ as a valid genus, another resurrected _Efraasia_, another erected _Ruehleia_, and more may be on the way.

*Efraasia* is not even a prosauropod, so that's not a case of splitting/lumping.

(The process is not entirely one-way: _Sellosaurus_ was sunk into
_Plateosaurus_, although as a separate species from the type.)

About as the same time as said type was reseparated into 2 species (*P. engelhardti* and the much more common *P. longiceps*).

Work is being done to break up others
among the aforementioned 'lumpy' genera, and some new names have already
been coined - but these have yet to be published.

Would be really great to have a phylogeny of *Psittacosaurus*. Even the attempt to synonymise the species into four is so old (1993?) that 2 or 3 species have been described since.