[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Remember the Alamosaurus (was RE: taxonomy is not stratigraphy)
Let's hope the
> type material for
> _Alamosaurus sanjuanensis_ is diagnostic...
When alamosaurus was described, the holotype material
was diagnostic. But a scapula (holotype) and (possibly
associated) ischium (paratype), are now
indistinguishable from all sorts of other Late K
Furthermore, there is observable variation in N.Am
'Alamosaurus' material from within the same formation,
that may suggest different species.
> >In fact, 'Alamosaurus' is probably a very bad
> choice for a biomarker since
> >the holotype material bears no synapomorphies.
> Oh dear. Looks like I spoke too soon. Nevetheless,
> the _Alamosaurus_
> holotype material may show a unique combination of
> characters, even if
> autapomorphies are not present. But you're right:
> it's a terrible choice
> for biomarker. The jury's still out whether it's a
> valid taxon.
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com