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

Completely pointless question about completely pointless genus

Earlier today I quickly cobbled together a brief page on _Trachodon_ for
palaeos.org (http://www.palaeos.org/Trachodon), but in the course of
looking up info for it I came across a bit of a conundrum. Apparently
the original _Trachodon mirabilis_ material included both hadrosaur and
ceratopsid teeth when Leidy described it in 1856. In 1858 Leidy
recognised the error, and restricted the name _Trachodon_ to a
_ceratopsid_ tooth, referring the hadrosaur material to _Hadrosaurus_.
This would appear to be the valid lectotypification of the species, but
seems to be in contrast to every other author since who used it to refer
to a hadrosaur. _Trachodon_ would be a nomen dubium whichever way you
look at it, but I've just been wondering about the question out of
morbid curiosity and pure pedantry. Is _Trachodon_ an unidentifiable
hadrosaur, or an unidentifiable ceratopsid?


        Christopher Taylor

Christopher Taylor
Dept of Environmental Biology
Curtin University of Technology
GPO Box U1987
WA 6845

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.4.3/1525 - Release Date:
29/06/2008 3:09 PM