[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?
Dept of Environmental Biology
Curtin University of Technology
GPO Box U1987
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