|
|
Post by arioch on Oct 29, 2011 21:18:06 GMT
Ow. I was under the impression that Edmontosaurus was already considered an inmature Anatotitan and no longer valid since quite a few years ago, and never made a big deal out of it. But yes, the older name must prevail....
Bring back Scolosaurus too!
|
|
|
|
Post by bowheadwhale on Nov 1, 2011 19:32:05 GMT
I'm wondering: could that be that Seismosaurus was just an oversize, very old Diplodocus that continued to grow until death?
|
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Nov 1, 2011 19:33:06 GMT
I'm wondering: could that be that Seismosaurus was just an oversize, very old Diplodocus that continued to grow until death? Seismosaurus has long since been sunk into Diplodocus. It's now Diplodocus hallorum. People do question as to whether or not it was just an aged individual of another Diplodocus species, though. As an aside, I always found it odd that no-one seems to mourn "Seismosaurus" in the same way as other redundant genera. I mean, I for one remember the animal being quite a big deal in kids' dinosaur books in the '90s... |
|
bfler
Junior Member
Posts: 97
|
Post by bfler on Nov 2, 2011 6:12:23 GMT
Because in general the most famous sauropods were Brachiosaurus, Diplodocus, Apatosaurus(Brontosaurus). All other were in the shadow of these three.
And the other way round also nobody seems to mourn Brachiosaurus brancai. If I am right, it was the figurehead of this species.
|
|
|
|
Post by Minnesota Jones on Nov 2, 2011 15:21:46 GMT
(And what about Trachodon, while we´re on it?) I miss Trachodon! Ha! Then I got use to Anatosaurus. Now that's gone too! Ugh! Totally stands to reason... you think how many species are just older or younger versions of others. Or different sexes too... Maybe 1/3 is correct... hmmmm....... Slightly off topic, how many of us are glad we call Tyrannosaurus rex what it is and not Dynamosaurus imperiosus or even Manospondylus gigas, meaning "giant porous vertebra?" That one cracks me up! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Nov 2, 2011 15:23:19 GMT
And the other way round also nobody seems to mourn Brachiosaurus brancai. If I am right, it was the figurehead of this species. "Brachiosaurus" brancai was a species. Although I presume you meant 'genus', in which case, yes, Giraffatitan brancai is known from more extensive remains than Brachiosaurus altithorax, and so has more often been used in restoratons of 'Brachiosaurus' than B. altithorax (which is actually the type species). However, Mike Taylor demonstrated quite exhaustively that Giraffatitan brancai deserves generic separation. (Woo, open access paper www.miketaylor.org.uk/dino/pubs/taylor2009/Taylor2009-brachiosaurus-and-giraffatitan.pdf) Mike's said before that he doesn't like the name 'Giraffatitan', but had to defer to Greg Paul, who first proposed generic separation and coined the name. Slightly off topic, how many of us are glad we call Tyrannosaurus rex what it is and not Dynamosaurus imperiosus or even Manospondylus gigas, meaning "giant porous vertebra?" That one cracks me up! ;D Oh man, don't mention that one...Dinoguy (aka Matt Martyniuk) thinks that, technically, we should be using that name. And he's probably right. But on the other hand....nah, I don't think so  . The ICZN would almost certainly bend the rules to allow Tyrannosaurus rex to remain, anway, something Matt himself has acknowledged I believe. |
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on Nov 5, 2011 13:26:32 GMT
Yes, ICZN can easily change the rules to preserve Tyrannosaurus rex. But they haven't yet so Manospondylus gigas is currently the correct name  I don't keep bringing this up because I like the name Manospondylus better... I keep bringing it up so people will quit ignoring the problem and freaking fix it already!  (I do have to admit that I like Agathaumas sylvestris ("great wonder of the forest") a lot better than Triceratops horridus ("horrible three-horned face"). I'll be a little sad when that one inevitably goes the way of Manospondylus one day). |
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Nov 5, 2011 13:40:50 GMT
I don't keep bringing this up because I like the name Manospondylus better... I keep bringing it up so people will quit ignoring the problem and freaking fix it already! Haha! ;D Is anyone ever going to write a paper on the matter of T. rex and get it certified as a nomen protectum? I just can't see anyone bothering... |
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on Nov 5, 2011 17:12:50 GMT
I don't keep bringing this up because I like the name Manospondylus better... I keep bringing it up so people will quit ignoring the problem and freaking fix it already! Haha! ;D Is anyone ever going to write a paper on the matter of T. rex and get it certified as a nomen protectum? I just can't see anyone bothering... Why not? They did it for Archaeopteryx... |
|
|
|
Post by bowheadwhale on Nov 9, 2011 19:50:12 GMT
Haha! ;D Is anyone ever going to write a paper on the matter of T. rex and get it certified as a nomen protectum? I just can't see anyone bothering... Why not? They did it for Archaeopteryx... What? It wasn't right?  |
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on Nov 12, 2011 0:42:12 GMT
Why not? They did it for Archaeopteryx... What? It wasn't right? There was a specimen of Archaeopteryx which was first thought to be a Pterodactylus. It wasn't realized to be Archie until the 60s, I think. The problem is it had been given a name: Pterodactylus crassipes, BEFORE Archaeopteryx was named. Therfore Archaeopteryx lithographica should have been renamed Archaeopteryx crassipes. Somebody wrote to the ICZN and not only fixed that, but officially nullified a ton of other synonyms named AFTER Archaeopteryx, just in case! |
|
. The ICZN would almost certainly bend the rules to allow Tyrannosaurus rex to remain, anway, something Matt himself has acknowledged I believe.
