Re: "Bambiraptor"

[Dinogeorge@aol.com]

In a message dated 1/24/00 11:06:49 AM EST, tholtz@geol.umd.edu writes:

<< > I thought that this was a specimen of Saurornitholestes langstoni.  It
 > certainly looks like a velociraptorine dromaeosaurid and is in the right
 > place and time for S. langstoni.  Does anyone know of any differences
 > between Saurornitholestes and "Bambiraptor"?
 >
 
 These may well be the same taxon: however, neither Saurornitholestes nor
 "Bambi" have been well described in the published literature. >>

I would think the idea in this case would be to redescribe Saurornitholestes 
better (if possible) rather than to erect a new genus. There seem to be too 
many new genera being described because previous material was described 
according to different standards and is discarded (e.g., why Jobaria 
tiguidensis but not Rebbachisaurus tamesnensis; Suchomimus but not 
Cristatusaurus; Majungatholus but not Majungasaurus; and so forth?).