dinosaur taxonomy

["Colette H. Adams" <cadams@hh.gpz.org>]

As far as I am able to tell Greg Paul was the first person to seriously
attempt to make dinosaur taxonomy comport with that of living species.  Is
this an incorrect characterization?

It seems to me that many of the synonymies Greg proposed have been
essentially ignored, with no justification given.  Does anyone really
question that Tyrannosaurus rex and T. bataar are congeners?  I continue to
see Tarbosaurus used as if Greg's book never existed.  We have all of these
monospecific dinosaur genera with apparently no basis in biology.

Is this an unfair analysis?  I hope so.  But Weishampel et al.'s The
Dinosauria does not even cite Greg's book.  Please tell me that I have
overlooked lots of literature which explains why Deinonychus, Gallimimus,
and Daspletosaurus should be considered valid genera.  I have this nagging
feeling that paleontologists want to avoid biology, and I want to be shown
the error of my intuitions.

Best regards,

Dave