Re: Bruhathkayosaurus notation

["Mickey Mortimer" <Mickey_Mortimer111@msn.com>]

Tommy Bradley wrote-

> My question regarding *Bruhathkayosaurus* DOES NOT concern it's size or
> classification.
> Rather, I would simply like to know the proper, original date of the name
(I
> understand that Chatterjee [1995] has contradicted Yadagiri & Ayyasami,
> making it a Titanosaurid Sauropod.)
> Some sources say 1987, some say 1989, and I'd like to know which is the
> correct (or MORE right) version.

Bruhathkayosaurus Yadagiri and Ayyasami 1989
B. matleyi Yadagiri and Ayyasami 1989

I have the description, and it's one of the worst I've seen, with horrific
illustrations.

> One further question, it is regarded as a Nomen Dubium, correct?

I'd call it provisionally nomen dubium.  Because while it's too poorly
described and illustrated to confirm validity, further study of the material
could easily do this.

Mickey Mortimer