[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Laelaps and Brontosauria (was Re: Resending)
Jaime Headden wrote:
Thus it's appeal is very strong. Original useage does not
preclude name useage, and exaptation of nomenclature has been done before,
where a name's "old" or "original" meaning (example, Coelurosauria used to
include all the SMALL, gracile theropods, including coelophysids, as well
traditional coelurosaurs we know and love, but NOT the big animals such as
Another example is Ceratosauria. When Marsh erected this new group it had
only a single member: _Ceratosaurus_. Marsh subsequently expanded the
Ceratosauria to include _Ornithomimus_ as well! For the next 100 years, the
name disappeared from usage - until it was revived as the name for a new
clade that included _Ceratosaurus_, _Dilophosaurus_ and coelophysids
(=podokesaurids). The "old" and "new" Ceratosauria have almost nothing in
common - except that they both include _Ceratosaurus_.
Jay <email@example.com> wrote:
However, unlike Ceratopsidae and Hadrosauridae, Brontosauria was only
recently, AND i add, well after it's syonymny with Apatosaurus was accepted
Why couldn't the author of Brontosauria go with Apatosauria? Where's the
respect for Apatosaurus?
You'd have to ask George Olshevsky why he coined the name Brontosauria. I
would add that "brontosaur" was a colloquial term for sauropod dinosaurs
long before the name "Brontosauria" was proposed. As Jaime said, the name
does have some intuitive appeal for historical reasons.
However who use's Brontosauria in the literature?
Absolutely nobody. Except for the guy who proposed the name Brontosauria,
and he wasn't constructing a phylogeny. The name first appeared in a
self-published article that included a Linnean classification of dinosaurs.
There were other quirks beside the Brontosauria entry (e.g., _Longisquama_
was regarded as a basal theropod).
Why not just abandon Brontosauria? It's original announcement was because
of a purported
relationship between therizinosaurs and sauropodomorphs.
For all intents and purposes, the name Brontosauria has been abandoned,
because the name hasn't actually been used in any sauropod phylogeny. I
don't see it on the horizon either.
Also, it's based on Brontosaurus, itself invalid by synonymy.
The name _Brontosaurus_ is nomenclaturally valid. The genus is invalid, as
long as it's considered a junior synonym of _Apatosaurus_. However, the
validity of _Brontosaurus_ in no way impacts on the availability of the name
We already have the names Plateosauridae, Plateosauria, Prosauropoda,
Interestingly, the type specimen of _Plateosaurus_ appears to be
non-diagnostic. If this is the case, then _P. engelhardti_ would require a
new type (a neotype) to ensure that the genus _Plateosaurus_ is valid.