[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Alamosaurus as biggest North American sauropod
Matthew Martyniuk <email@example.com> wrote:
> This is completely unsustainable and revisionist. _Titanosaurus
> indicus_ was not a "crap taxon" when it was described. It was
> perfectly diagnosable relative to knowledge of sauropods *at that
> time*. A century of further discoveries rendered it "crap" *in
> comparison to* more and better finds.
Strangely enough, Lydekker (1887) recognized that the _Titanosaurus_
caudals were very similar to those of _Macrurosaurus_. But although
Lydekker was certain that _Titanosaurus_ was a dinosaur closely allied
to _Cetiosaurus_ and _Pelorosaurus_, he wasn't convinced that
_Macrurosaurus_ was actually a dinosaur!
> Exactly. I would argue that the person who named the second taxon from
> a sample where no justification for multiple taxa exists was the first
> to act, and any subsequent sinking is a correction of their taxonomic
> over-reach. Sinking _Jainosaurus_ into _Titanosaurus_, for example,
> would be an act to correct the misguided act of pervious workers, who
> by both philosophies should not have acted to split those taxa.
Huene is the guilty party. He made a dog's breakfast of the Lameta
sauropod remains from Bara Simla. His reasons for erecting
_Antarctosaurus septentrionalis_ were certainly misguided, and still
haunt us today.