[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
Tim Williams wrote-
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
No. Glut (2003) included a caveat in his book saying is wasn't "to be used
for formal taxonomic purposes" (pg. ix). Thus even though he published the
name, it's still a nomen nudum.
I'm very surprised Lambert got credit for Coloradisaurus. Though my
memories of the book are vague, I don't recall it being the type to include
species names, diagnoses (13.1.1) or bibliographic references to the
technical literature (13.1.2). Are we sure it's valid?
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.
Indeed they did, and I agree with you.