Re: Arambougiania Citation Redux

[Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

Mickey Mortimer wrote:

> Apparently the Thecodontosaurus antiquus neotype (a dentary with teeth) is 
> indeterminate relative to Pantydraco caducus and Saturnalia.  Also, there 
> are three humeral morphotypes in the Thecodontosaurus material, so no 
> postcrania can be certainly assigned to the genus.  One (YMP 2195) will be 
> described by Galton (in prep.) as a new taxon, another (robust) is 
> apparently a member of the Prosauropoda+Sauropoda clade, and the third 
> (gracile) may belong to Thecodontosaurus and is also known from a 
> monospecific assemblage from another locaility to be described by Yates and 
> Benton (in prep.).  Galton (in prep.) will describe the gracile and robust 
> forms in more detail.

So is _Thecodontosaurus antiquus_ a nomen dubium?  Or can material from the 
monospecific assemblage be potentially used to maintain the validity of _T. 
antiquus_?  Or are both these questions to be addressed in a forthcoming 
paper and I should JUST SHUDDUP ALREADY?

Cheers

Tim

_________________________________________________________________
Exercise your brain! Try Flexicon. 
http://games.msn.com/en/flexicon/default.htm?icid=flexicon_hmemailtaglineapril07