Re: Segnosauria vs. Therizinosauria

["Timothy Williams" <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

Dinogeorge wrote:

> << Why couldn't we have stuck with Barsbold's
>  Saurornithoididae, which has a more stable genus as its name-bearer?
>  Because the ICZN said we couldn't, that's why. >>
>
> No, it's because we now have more information about Troodon than when
> Barsbold described Saurornithoididae.

Only because of a number of good specimens (like the _Stenonychosaurus 
inequalis_ type material) were referred to _Troodon_.  _Troodon_ was founded 
upon isolated teeth.  It may come to be that the teeth named _Troodon_ are 
not diagnostic at the genus/species level (as happened for _Deinodon_ and 
_Trachodon_).  If so, it too gets flung into the abyss as a _nomen dubium_.  
This possibility has been raised a few times (and I think once in a paper by 
Tom Holtz - apologies if I'm mis-quoting; I'm going from memory).  Should 
this occur, we go back to calling this family the Saurornithoididae.  
_Saurornithoides_ is based upon a reasonable specimen.  _Troodon_ isn't.  My 
point is that it might have been easier back in the 1980's to retain the 
name Saurornithoididae for this family, irrespective of the "new" _Troodon_ 
material that was being described at the time.

But, a rose is a rose, I guess...



Tim




______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com