[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Suchosaurus, Baryonyx and Martinavis
--- Tim Williams <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Denver Fowler wrote:
> > Some of this is being discussed on my SVP poster
> (rather unfortunate that buffetaut's paper comes out
> right before my
> > presentation), but I think Buffetaut is looking
> for an excuse to keep Baryonyx, rather than really
> coming up with a good
> > defensible reason not to dump the genus for
> Yes, that was my impression too. It's a nice way to
> avoid controversy, since sinking _Baryonyx_ into
> _Suchosaurus_ would be a BIG deal. _Suchosaurus_
> sacrificed on the altar of nomenclatural stability.
> On that point...
> > The good examples of troodon and
> carcharodontosaurus (mentioned by tim) are identical
> In both cases (_Troodon_ and _Carcharodontosaurus_)
> the names might benefit from nominating a neotype,
> as was done for _Iguanodon_. Otherwise, I can see
> somewhere down the track both genera (_Troodon_ and
> _Carcharodontosaurus_) being declared nomina dubia
> on account of them been founded upon isolated
> teeth. Of course, the alternative is to throw both
> genera (_Troodon_ and _Carcharodontosaurus_) to the
> wolves, as has been done for so many other
> taxa (_Trachodon_, _Deinodon_, and now
> _Suchosaurus_). As Denver is alluding to, this
> business of determining seniority is so very
> arbitrary and subjective.
> _Troodon_ trumps _Stenonychosaurus_, but _Baryonyx_
> trumps _Suchosaurus_, even though they're completely
> analogous situations.
> The added complication is that both _Troodon_,
> _Carcharodontosaurus_ and _Baryonyx_ are all
> nominative genera for established higher-level taxa
> Carcharodontosauridae, Baryonychinae). Then again,
> Ceratopsidae continues to be used, even though
> _Ceratops_ is almost always regarded as a nomen
> More airy-fairy, hand-wavey justifications, rather
> than hard-and-fast objective rules.
> > Baryonyx is a junior synonym of Suchosaurus.
> Nevertheless, Baryonyx is a nicer name than
> Suchosaurus, although
> > Suchosaurus is more descriptive... I suppose you
> could argue that Bary is in more general usage...
> but then collectors
> > on the Isle of Wight, UK, were using the term
> Suchosaurus for baryonychid teeth, long before
> Baryonyx itself was even
> > named. Furthermore, at the very least, if
> Suchosaurus can indeed be attributed to
> > Spinosauridae (which it can).. then the
> nomenclature should recognise it as the senior
> taxon, thus
> > Spinosauridae=Suchosauridae,
> Baryonychinae=Suchosaurinae etc. which I think is
> much better.
> The added benefit is that Spinosauridae is founded
> upon _Spinosaurus_, and it has been suggested that
> _Spinosaurus aegyptiacus_ is a composite taxon
> (spinosauroid jaws+teeth, carnosaurian dorsal
> vertebrae). By sinking Spinosauridae (as well as
> Baryonychidae) into Suchosauridae, we dodge another
> nomenclatural timebomb rooted in the _Spinosaurus_
> hypodigm. (BTW, I'm not arguing that _Spinosaurus_
> is a chimera, only that the suggestion that it is
> another level of uncertainty to the the phylogenetic
> nomenclature of basal Tetanurae.)
If _Spinosaurus_ is a chimera, where would that place
the dorsal vertebrae? Are there any features of the
vertebrae which unite the specimen with _Suchomimus_?
Dr. Sereno's original description of _Suchomimus_
doesn't mention any:
An update on the original _Spinosaurus_ material
doesn't touch on this issue either:
> Interestingly, it's been suggested that _Suchomimus
> tenerensis_ be sunk into _Baryonyx_. If (as Denver
> suggests) _Baryonyx_ is sunk into _Suchosaurus_,
> _Suchomimus tenerensis_ would become _Suchosaurus
> tenerensis_. Hey. it could happen.... ;-)
> > I still prefer the name Baryonyx.
> Alas, aesthetic preferences are not covered by the
> ICZN. There's a lot of god-awful dinosaur names I'd
> like to see the back of...