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

Re: Bakker's Brontosaurus and Late Cretaceous populations

David Marjanovic wrote:

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*...?

This was in the Sauropoda chapter of the new Dinosauria volume. (I'm just passing the info on, so don't take this as an endorsement on my part that _Eobrontosaurus_ has 'disappeared' into _Camarasaurus_.)

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

Not that I know of. What I was driving at is that it has been recognized that _D. sinensis_ does not belong in _Dilophosaurus_, just as _C. maortuensis_ does not belong in _Chilantaisaurus_ (and I do know a new genus name has been proposed for _maortuensis_).

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

It was once thought that _Efraasia diagnostica_ (=_Palaeosaurus diagnosticus_) was based on a juvenile specimen of _Sellosaurus_ (=_Plateosaurus_), so it was sunk as a junior synonym of _Plateosaurus_ or _Sellosaurus_ (e.g., Galton, 1990). Recent studies have reinstated the genus _Efraasia_ as valid. So on this point, it is a case of splitting/lumping.

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.

When it comes to _Psittacosaurus_, my genus-meter goes off the dial. :-) Admittedly, there is no evidence that the genus is polyphyletic or even paraphyletic.