[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Rahiolisaurus vs Indosuchus (was Re: Nomen Dubium Misuse Part II- Gwyneddosaurus
Below is the full quote from Novas et al. (2010), which was truncated in my
previous message.
(I have the full _Rahiolisaurus_ description as a pdf, for anyone who's
interested.)
"It is difficult to evaluate the taxonomic status and validity of Indian
abelisaurids, as most species have been established on the basis of fragmentary
remains. This is the case for the abelisaurids _Lametasaurus indicus_ (Matley,
1923), _Indosuchus raptorius_ (Huene and Matley, 1933; Chatterjee, 1978), and
_Indosaurus matleyi_ (Huene and Matley, 1933; Chatterjee, 1978). These Indian
abelisaurids have had a complex and checkered taxonomic history, already
reviewed in several recent papers (see Wilson et al., 2003; Novas et al., 2004;
Carrano and Sampson, 2008). Unfortunately, the holotypic materials supporting
each of these taxa do not offer clear autapomorphic features (Novas et al.,
2004; Carrano and Sampson, 2008), and it is difficult (if not impossible) to
refer the several isolated bones collected in the same quarry to any of the
above mentioned species. Moreover, many of the specimens originally described
by Matley (1923) and Huene and Matley
(1933) are currently lost. [snip] Because of these problems, we believe that
_Lametasaurus indicus_, _Indosuchus raptorius_, and _Indosaurus matleyi_ must
be considered as nomina dubia."