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

RE: Me vs. Makovicky et al.- comparison and consensus




Glut's encyclopedia was certainly published. Not viable for new taxonomy, but published >nonetheless.

I'm a little slow today, but is somebody actually suggesting that "Alashansaurus" is a valid genus, and that Glut gets the attribution for the name? (I was holding off mentioning this name until now, but that particular horse has bolted, and the stable door is flapping in the wind...) I'm afraid I'm having a little trouble following certain aspects of the discussion.


Anyway, if so, the above situation would have a precedent. The circumstances are similar (though not identical) to the way in which the prosauropod genus _Coloradisaurus_ was named back in 1983. The name _Coloradisaurus_ (replacement for preoccupied genus _Coloradia_) first appeared in _The Collins Guide to Dinosaurs_ (published as _The Field Guide to Dinosaurs_ in the United States), a popular-science book. The author of the book, freelance writer David Lambert, thus gets credit for the new genus, even though he had no intention of naming it. This is what happened: Before publication of the book, José Bonaparte had apparently told Lambert that he had renamed this genus _Coloradisaurus_, and Lambert published the name assuming that Bonaparte had already published the new name. He hadn't. Lambert was (and maybe still is) enormously embarrassed about this. Nevertheless, Lambert (not Bonaparte) gets credit for naming _Coloradisaurus_.

(On a totally different subject... Jaime, I believe it is Lambert [1983] who gives _Walgettosuchus_ as a junior synonym of _Rapator_, without explanation.)

If no one does more extensively publish Enigmosauria or another name for the therizinosaur-
oviraptorosaur clade by the time I publish my results (so within the next ~4 years maybe), and I recover it in my mpt's, I will name the clade. There's no reason not to.

I had thought that Currie and Padian (1997) defined a stem-based Oviraptorosauria (_Oviraptor_ <-- _Passer_), which would put therizinosaurs inside the Oviraptorosauria alongside the 'traditional' oviraptorosaurs (oviraptorids, caenagnathids, &c). Thus, this Oviraptorosauria is equivalent (at least in content) to Enigmosauria. Having said that, I'm not sure that this *expansion* of the Oviraptorosauria is such a good idea; IMHO it is preferable to have a less inclusive Oviraptorosauria, and a new clade name for this group + therizinosaur(oid)s.


Cheers

Tim