Message 2003-02-0018: Re: New Dinosauricon Taxon Pages: _Therizinosauria_

Mon, 03 Feb 2003 12:33:27 -0800 (PST)

[Previous by date - Re: New Dinosauricon Taxon Pages: _Therizinosauria_]
[Next by date - Re: New Dinosauricon Taxon Pages: _Therizinosauria_]
[Previous by subject - Re: New Dinosauricon Taxon Pages: _Therizinosauria_]
[Next by subject - Re: New Dinosauricon Taxon Pages: _Therizinosauria_]

Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 12:33:27 -0800 (PST)
From: "Jaime A. Headden" <>
Subject: Re: New Dinosauricon Taxon Pages: _Therizinosauria_

Mike Taylor (

<Jaime surely did not mean that _Diploducus longus_ and _Diplodocus
carnegiei_ would have to have different "first names" (that is, first
space-separated component of their single names).>

   Jaime surely did. In diplodocids, the relative relationships of the
species are difficult at best. *D. hayi* may or may not be different from
a clade formed by *D. carnegii* and *D. longus,* which may or may not be
the same species (if so, *D. longus* as the type species has priority);
*Apatosaurus ajax* and *A. excelsus* have been at one time or another
considered the same species, or very, very close species; *A. louisae* has
been ill-treated in systematic works by virtual is not complete neglect,
and diplodocid relationships are horribly under-represented in dinosaurian
systematic circles by comparison to, say, thyreophorans or brachiosaurs,
to say nothing of titanosaurs and theropods. *A. excelsus*, of course, if
a unique species, would revert to Bakker's favored nomen, *Brontosaurus
excelsus;* *A. yahnaphin* or *Eobrontosaurus yahnapin,* I care not, as
this form is substantiated on morphocline data and stratigraphic
separation only, and has again not received much attention apart from the
two referrences in which it was described and *Eobrontosaurus* was coined.
Only three new names would be required of these two taxa: For *D.
carnegii*, for *D. hayi*, and for *A. louisae* ... for *Barosaurus
africanus*, other workers have questioned the referral to *Barosaurus* on
the basis soley of elongated cervical series, and the taxon may require
another name if the species is valid and distinct from *B. lentus* (*B.
gracilis* is probably the same as *B. africanus*, and *D. lacustris* shows
little distinction from other *Diplodocus* and is currently, I beleive,
*D.* sp.). Problems of who gets what name when referal sets in would
matter only when all taxa have equal names. While one suggestion of
Cantino et al. was to reduce to a  single name, this would require unique
taxonomy on an order equivalent to or exceeding what I suggest, and the
idea that reduction of *Adasaurus mongoliensis* and *Velociraptor
mongoliensis* to Mongoliensis Barsbold, 1983 and Mongoliensis Osborn, 1924
being unique names if false, as only the citations of a species name are
different. If a work were to name, as in Osborn, 1924, two species which
are Mongoliensis, then how would opne tell them apart? *Velociraptor* and
*Saurornithoides* are hardly referrable to one another.


   Jaime A. Headden

Jaime A. Headden

   Little steps are often the hardest to take. 
We are too used to making leaps in the face of 
adversity, that a simple skip is so hard to do. 
We should all learn to walk soft, walk small, 
see the world around us rather than zoom by it.

"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.


Feedback to <> is welcome!