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

Re: Rahiolisaurus vs Indosuchus (was Re: Nomen Dubium Misuse Part II- Gwyneddosaurus

Below is the full quote from Novas et al. (2010), which was truncated in my 
previous message.

(I have the full _Rahiolisaurus_ description as a pdf, for anyone who's 

"It is difficult to evaluate the taxonomic status and validity of Indian 
abelisaurids, as most species have been established on the basis of fragmentary 
remains.  This is the case for the abelisaurids _Lametasaurus indicus_ (Matley, 
1923), _Indosuchus raptorius_ (Huene and Matley, 1933; Chatterjee, 1978), and 
_Indosaurus matleyi_ (Huene and Matley, 1933; Chatterjee, 1978).  These Indian 
abelisaurids have had a complex and checkered taxonomic history, already 
reviewed in several recent papers (see Wilson et al., 2003; Novas et al., 2004; 
Carrano and Sampson, 2008).  Unfortunately, the holotypic materials supporting 
each of these taxa do not offer clear autapomorphic features (Novas et al., 
2004; Carrano and Sampson, 2008), and it is difficult (if not impossible) to 
refer the several isolated bones collected in the same quarry to any of the 
above mentioned species.  Moreover, many of the specimens originally described 
by Matley (1923) and Huene and Matley
 (1933) are currently lost. [snip] Because of these problems, we believe that 
_Lametasaurus indicus_, _Indosuchus raptorius_, and _Indosaurus matleyi_ must 
be considered as nomina dubia."