Re: Loricatosaurus: some questions

[David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

> 1) Is it standard practice to raise a new genus from a referred specimen 
> if the holotype is later considered undiagnostic? Why not peditition to 
> have the referred specimen declaired a lectotype instead? In the case 
> above it is just a new name for the same genus and it seems more resonable 
> to preserve the old name if possible.

It is fairly standard practice. I think petitions take a long time to be 
considered and are often rejected.

> 2) Galton must be considered the person who has studied the material in 
> most detail. Why reject his referred material, it make lack 
> aut[a]pomorphies, but doesn't his expert opinion have some weight in the 
> matter? Guess the question could be [ph]rased: Is an expert opinion a 
> valid reason to refer material to a certain genus or does the referred 
> material have to have some shared aut[a]pomorphy with the holotype 
> material?

The latter. That's because, in science, there is no such thing as an expert 
opinion.

What counts is not who had the opinion, but what it is based on. Galton has 
(presumably -- I haven't seen the paper) published the reasons for his 
conclusion, and Maidment & Wei found those reasons insufficient, for reasons 
they, too, have (presumably) published.