RE: Me vs. Makovicky et al.- comparison and consensus

[Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

> Glut's encyclopedia was certainly published.  Not viable for new taxonomy, 
> but published >nonetheless.

I'm a little slow today, but is somebody actually suggesting that 
"Alashansaurus" is a valid genus, and that Glut gets the attribution for the 
name?  (I was holding off mentioning this name until now, but that 
particular horse has bolted, and the stable door is flapping in the wind...) 
 I'm afraid I'm having a little trouble following certain aspects of the 
discussion.

Anyway, if so, the above situation would have a precedent.  The 
circumstances are similar (though not identical) to the way in which the 
prosauropod genus _Coloradisaurus_ was named back in 1983.  The name 
_Coloradisaurus_ (replacement for preoccupied genus _Coloradia_) first 
appeared in _The Collins Guide to Dinosaurs_ (published as _The Field Guide 
to Dinosaurs_ in the United States), a popular-science book.  The author of 
the book, freelance writer David Lambert, thus gets credit for the new 
genus, even though he had no intention of naming it.  This is what happened: 
Before publication of the book, José Bonaparte had apparently told Lambert 
that he had renamed this genus _Coloradisaurus_, and Lambert published the 
name assuming that Bonaparte had already published the new name.  He hadn't. 
 Lambert was (and maybe still is) enormously embarrassed about this.  
Nevertheless, Lambert (not Bonaparte) gets credit for naming 
_Coloradisaurus_.

(On a totally different subject... Jaime, I believe it is Lambert [1983] who 
gives _Walgettosuchus_ as a junior synonym of _Rapator_, without 
explanation.)

> If no one does more extensively publish Enigmosauria or another name for 
> the therizinosaur-
> oviraptorosaur clade by the time I publish my results (so within the next 
> ~4 years maybe), and I recover it in my mpt's, I will name the clade.  
> There's no reason not to.

I had thought that Currie and Padian (1997) defined a stem-based 
Oviraptorosauria (_Oviraptor_ <-- _Passer_), which would put therizinosaurs 
inside the Oviraptorosauria alongside the 'traditional' oviraptorosaurs 
(oviraptorids, caenagnathids, &c).  Thus, this Oviraptorosauria is 
equivalent (at least in content) to Enigmosauria.  Having said that, I'm not 
sure that this *expansion* of the Oviraptorosauria is such a good idea; IMHO 
it is preferable to have a less inclusive Oviraptorosauria, and a new clade 
name for this group + therizinosaur(oid)s.

Cheers

Tim