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

Re: Question for the pterosaur set..



My apologies to those seeing this a second time, but Fabio's message
was truncated in the CMNH archives
(http://dml.cmnh.org/2008Feb/msg00262.html), and I want to make sure
the text is as widely available as it appears to have been intended to
be:

Sent on behalf of Alexander W. A. Kellner:  

Dear colleagues,

      I recently heard about the uneasy feeling regarding
Tupandactylus X Ingridia. It is indeed an unfortunate situation. The
purpose of Diogenes and me in our 2007 paper was to question the
results published by Martill and Naish, who basically regarded
Thalassodromeus sethi and Tupuxuara longicristatus as synonymous,
dismissing most diagnostic features a priori as taphonomic. Since we
did not agree with this and to provide readers with an alternative, we
wrote that paper, commenting on each point raised against our
interpretation.

      During this process we also put forward our ideas about
tapejarid classification, creating two new clades (Thalassodrominae
and Tapejarinae), an interpretation that somewhat was already outlined
in the phylogenetic analysis I did carry out previously.

      When Campos and I described T. imperator, we regarded it
belonging to the genus Tapejara because of the inclination of the
rostrum. However, this feature has also been found in tapejarids from
China. Therefore we could have classified all in the same genus or
regard them as distinct - as we end up doing.

      If you read Kellner & Campos 2007, you will see that we
specifically pointed out that - if Tapejara navigans lacks the
posterior extension of the skull (present in Tupandactylus imperator),
it possible represents a new taxon.  In other words, if the authors of
the original paper still regard their arguments as valid, they have
the chance to rename it if they so wish.

      In this same paper, we also pointed out the problematic
concerning Huaxiapterus. Although we could have proposed a new generic
name for this Chinese tapejarid, we refrain from that, giving the
authors of the original paper the chance to discuss this a little bit
further and, if they so wish, rename their taxon. I think that this is
what one should do in this kind of situation and would not like to get
this issue mixed with the so called "Aetogate" or anything of that
sort. It is not as if we have figured unpublished specimens that
someone else had prepared and used in a dissertation, which is a
problem, by the way, that one of my students is facing right now.

Any comments, please direct them to 
[in an effort to reduce spam, I am modifying his address: 

alexander dot kellner at gmail dot com

-- MPR ]

Best,

Alexander Kellner