Re: A Pile of Questions

[Dinogeorge@aol.com]

In a message dated 96-01-21 22:56:15 EST, Graeme Worth writes:

>Maybe someone out there can help with one or more of these queries?
>1) The only species of Daspletosaurus I have listed is D. torosus. Is this
>still valid, or is it now a junior synonym of Gorgosaurus libratus?

Valid as far as I'm concerned.

>2) What are the currently accepted valid species of Albertosaurus?

Only Albertosaurus sarcophagus, as far as I'm concerned. Although there have
been lots of species referred to the genus over the years.

>3) Ditto for Parasaurolophus?

Parasaurolophus walkeri, P. cyrtocristatus, P. tubicen. The latter may be a
synonym of the first.

>4) Ditto for Kritosaurus and Gryposaurus?

Kritosaurus navajovius only, but it's a nomen dubium. Gryposaurus notabilis,
G. incurvimanus, and G. latidens are the only species of Gryposaurus,
according to Horner.

>5) Are Yangchuanosaurus shangyouensis and Y. magnus valid species or have
>they also been transferred to Sinraptor with Y. hepingensis?

Both Yangchuanosaurus species are still alive and kicking, but I think
Yangchuanosaurus magnus may get its own genus soon.

>6) Does anyone have any info on Edmontosaurus major, or the Nodosaurus
>species sternbergi, coeli or landerensis?

There's no Edmontosaurus major, but there is an Edmontosaurus minor, now
considered a synonym of Edmontosaurus annectens

Only Nodosaurus textilis remains in the genus. Hierosaurus sternbergii is a
nomen dubium; Stegopelta landerensis is a nomen dubium; and Niobrarasaurus
coleii is hanging in there.

>7) Are the Oldman and Judith River Formations of Alberta different
>formations and how? Does Dinosaur Provincial Park include either or both of
>these? I've seen references to various dinosaurs where different authors
>give one or the other formation, or just DPP.

Oldman Formation is presently subsumed into the Judith River Formation.
Dinosaur Provincial Park, however, is now considered to have its own
formation, the Dinosaur Park Formation.

>8) Is there an updated (from The Dinosauria) concensus on the best
>classification of the hadrosaurs?

I mainly use Horner's classification (1992) with some modifications a la Mike
Brett-Surman.

>9) Are there any skulls at all attributed to Hadrosaurus? If not, and if the
>skull is essential for hadrosaurid classification (hence the loss of
>Hadrosaurus to nomina dubium) why was the first specimen of Kritosaurus or
>Gryposaurus not also attributed to Hadrosaurus? If Hadrosaurus is to be
>nomina dubium, what do we now call the hadrosauridae and hadrosaurinae?

Only a whisper of skull material is known for Hadrosaurus foulkii, not enough
by a long shot to make it a valid taxon. In the old days, people didn't
realize how much hadrosaur classification depends on the skulls, and they
didn't have enough skull material from distinct genera to see what was
important. For example, the back of the skull of Kritosaurus navajovius is
very similar to that of Gryposaurus notabilis, so they were synonymized. But
now we know two more genera, Anasazisaurus and Naashoibitosaurus, with skulls
differing in front but very similar to that of Kritosaurus in back. Right
now, we can't tell whether Hadrosaurus was like Gryposaurus, Edmontosaurus,
or even Saurolophus.

We should petition the ICZN to retain the names Hadrosauridae and
Hadrosaurinae despite the doubtful status of _Hadrosaurus_, to promote
stability of zoological nomenclature.

>Thanks in advance for your answers.
>Graeme