[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 the name?

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.

Mickey Mortimer