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

Re: Australodocus a titanosauriform and other new papers

Mike Taylor <mike@indexdata.com> wrote:

> IF Whitlock is correct about Australodocus (and I don't have an
> opinion about that yet because I prefer to wait for the paper to be
> actually published than to read an unedited and unformatted
> manuscript)

The journal invites us to cite the article (even providing
instructions on how to do it correctly), so I have no qualms about
reading it.

> then, yes, Tornieria will be -- for now -- the only
> recognised diplodocid from Tendaguru.  (Although consistency with his
> usual taxonomic practice would require Whitlock to fold even that back
> into Barosaurus, following "tradition".)

I was almost going to mention that too... except that it's my
understanding that the Tendaguru diplodocid was called _Tornieria_
before it was referred to _Barosaurus_ (by Janensch).  (It was
originally called _Gigantosaurus africanus_, but was renamed
_Tornieria africanus_ [later _africana_] on account of _Gigantosaurus_
being preoccupied.)

> The moment someone does a phylogenetic analysis that includes more
> putative brachiosaurids than Brachiosaurus and Giraffatitan, and that
> has some resolution, then B. and G. WILL be split.

Yes, which brings me to David's post:

David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at> wrote:

> Your approach, too, is utilitarian.

When it comes to taxonomy, my approach emphasizes phylogeny.  It
trumps everything else - including historical tradition.  I don't care
how long the thing was called _Brachiosaurus brancai_.  We can start a
new and better tradition by calling it _Giraffatitan_.