[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Gargantuavis neck vertebra
GSPaul <GSP1954@aol.com> wrote:
> The one problem I have with the paper is the reference of an isolated
> vertebra not only to a specific genus, but to a particular species that is not
> from exactly the same formation and level of that formation, and when there
> are no cervicals known from the holotype or even from any other specimen that
> can be assigned to the group. After all, just a thousand years ago there
> were a whole lot of similar modest sized moa species crawling around New
> Zealand. Who knows how many gargantuavid (not sure if this is the family
> name, too
> lazy to check) species and genera were wandering around on the island/s
> (not sure how many there were, too lazy to check) of Campanian/Maastrichtian
> southern France. Must have been a number of them if that Darwin was right
> about evolution of the species. Chucking isolated material into a species is
> more often than not a very bad habit that we need to stifle yourselves on.
> tossing all Triceratops random bones into T. horridus when it now looks
> like there are two or more species separated stratigraphically. Another bad
> is labeling all allosaurid remains from the Morrison (except the top) A.
> fragilis. Pleeeze.
So, sort of like referring the skull named _Nemegtosaurus_ and the
postcranium named _Opisthocoelicaudia_ to the same sauropod, even in
the absence of overlapping material.... ;-)