[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Andrew McDonald response re: European iguanodonts
Jaime Headden <email@example.com> wrote:
> If it weren't for various actions to stabilize the name *Iguanodon* (type
> species, type specimen) away from the teeth, we'd be dealing with another
> taxon nominative of a group from which is
> couldn't be reasonably compared, a la *Titanosaurus* and *Troodon*.
Agreed. _Troodon_ is a ticking time-bomb. The taxon _T. formosus_
was established upon a tooth; but numerous other remains have been
referred to this species, including a fragmentary skeleton named
_Stenonychosaurus inequalis_ and a dentary named _Polyodontosaurus
grandis_, from various horizons. It's not likely that all this
material comes from a single species, which would mean that the _T.
formosus_ tooth morphology is shared by more than one species. Under
these circumstances, either _T. formosus_ is a nomen dubium, or a new
holotype (neotype) would be designated in order to keep the genus
_Troodon_ as a valid taxon (as was done with _Iguanodon_). If the
former, we would go back to calling the family Saurornithoididae.
A neotype (a partial skull) was also proposed for _Carcharodontosaurus
saharicus_, a taxon also founded upon teeth (now lost) (Brusatte and
Sereno, 2007). The risk here is that if _Carcharodontosaurus_ became
a nomen dubium, the genus _Sigilmassasaurus_ would be available to
receive the diagnostic material referred to _Carcharodontosaurus_ -
assuming that the two are synonymous.