A new tyrannosaurid from Mexico - Labocania aguillonae

[VD231991]

Link to article: https://www.mdpi.com/2813-6284/2/4/12

The placement of Labocania in the tyrannosaurine clade Teratophoneini demonstrates that a few tyrannosaurids convergently evolved a thick frontal with abelisaurids and a few carcharodontosaurids.

[DefinitelyNOTDilo]

I should point out, several very well informed people I know who have read the paper are highly skeptical of the results, not to mention it's a Longrich paper which throw's some doubt on it's legitimacy as well.

[VD231991]

I should point out, several very well informed people I know who have read the paper are highly skeptical of the results, not to mention it's a Longrich paper which throw's some doubt on it's legitimacy as well.

The placement of Alioramini and Nanotyrannus outside Tyrannosaurinae in the phylogeny by Rivera-Sylva and Longrich (2024) runs counter to the recovery of Aliorami and Nanotyrannus within Tyrannosaurinae in the cladistic analysis of Asiatyrannus.

[DefinitelyNOTDilo]

Yeah, the whole thing is wonky, even the inclusion of this species in the genus Labocania is iffy at best.

[suspsy]

Copied and pasted from this Facebook post: https://www.facebook.com/share/7i72rY4ckuisoh2k/?mibextid=WC7FNe

#PALEONOTICIAS: New questionable dinosaur species reported for Mexico, in a questionable paper by two paleontologists with similar ethics 😮

Today we learn about the recent publication in the magazine Fossil Studies, where two paleontologists report a new species of theropod in Mexico. The authors are Hector Rivera Silva, attributed to the Desert Museum (MUDE), who was involved in the controversial publication about a dinosaur illegally looted from Brazil (without issuing any statement about it), and Nick Longrich, known for his involvement in harassment scandals of students, mainly women, at the University from Bath, England.

Beyond the backgrounds of these authors, the article presents a new species based on extremely incomplete and fragmentary remains of a dinosaur. The remains were found in the Cerro del Pueblo Formation, in Coahuila, Mexico, 72.5 million years old, in the Late Cretaceous, in a deltaic environment with a high degree of transport.

The holotype, housed in the MUDE Collection (CPC 2974), includes scattered fragments: a fragment of the jaw, the left and right fronts, the central part of the left teardrop, partial nostrils, the rear end of the left scaly, fragments of a cervical vertebrae, a dorsal center, fragments of the sacre, the posterior end of two caudal centers and a caudal neural arc, the left humerus, the acetabular region of the left ilion, the partial left isquion, the left femur, the proximal and distal ends of the left tibia, the proximate end of the left perone, the left metatarsian II (missing the distal end) and the pedal falanges II-1, II-2 and III-3. At first glance it looks like a lot of material, but when checking the scheme it becomes clear that they are very incomplete remains.

Although the article describes some facies to clarify the origin of the material, it lacks a clear stratigraphic column that accurately indicates the exact location of the findings. Furthermore, since the formation environment is predominantly deltaic, it is very likely that the debris have been transported, which casts doubt that all these fragments belong to a single individual.

A key question that arises is: how can scientific journals allow publication of such deficient papers? This leads us to rethink the business and dynamics of scientific publications, where media impact on scientific quality is sometimes prioritized. This phenomenon also highlights the problem of describing new species in the fossil record of vertebrates from SO incomplete remains. In addition, the media spectacle surrounding these questionable discoveries is highlighted, used by institutions such as the Desert Museum, without adequate accountability for the multiple scandals their staff have been involved in, such as the recent case of Ubirajara.

[DefinitelyNOTDilo]

I've heard that the paper was published through an organization tied to Longrich, so that could answer some of this.

[EmperorDinobot]

The skull they unveiled with the tacky lights looks like a Vastatosaurus rex. I didn't want to say anything because I haven't read the paper. L. anomala is too fragmentary and here they are erecting a new species, which may be valid, but under Labocania? As far as I was concerned was dubious years ago. before my 2015 disconnect. The whole thing felt rushed.


Now you're telling me it's a Longrich thing.

That's rich.

[CharlieNovember]

Thank you guys for this enlightening thread ! Indeed, it seems like this paleontologist (Longrich) is specialised in finding new species of dinosaurs from highly fragmentary remains (CF for example the 2023 paper on the 2 new species of Moroccan Abelisauridae which haven't even been named as the studied fossils were too fragmentary )... That being said, why not ? But on the other hand, I become skeptical when I see the number of new specimens he is able to find so quickly. If there wasn't the peer-review system, he would have probably already written a dinosaurs encyclopedia on his own ? Having read the paper on the "new Labocania", I'm also quite puzzled about the numerous typo errors on it : missing letters, referred figures reversal, possible invalid species featured in the tree fig 12 (Albertosaurus arctungis ?) etc... Apart from his questionable background, we might wonder whether he is scientifically conscientious or just wants to make the buzz on the social networks.

[DefinitelyNOTDilo]

I wouldn't say Longrich is specialized in finding species with sparse remains, more so he's specialized in modifying data to get the results he wants. Nothing he is attached with should be trusted at face value.

[stargatedalek]

His field is less "paleontology" and more "professional dinosaur namer".

[CharlieNovember]

I wouldn't say Longrich is specialized in finding species with sparse remains, more so he's specialized in modifying data to get the results he wants. Nothing he is attached with should be trusted at face value.

@DefinitelyNOTDilo WOW lol And it should be easier to say whatever you want on the basis of sparse chunks of fossils that no one wants to study because too fragmentary and so not conclusive !

[Stegotyranno420]

His field is less "paleontology" and more "professional dinosaur namer".

Where can I sign up for that job? I love etymology, and I love dinosaurs lol

[CharlieNovember]

His field is less "paleontology" and more "professional dinosaur namer".

yeah, most of his papers are titled "A new..."
By the way, we can't find any Wikipedia entry on this paleo ?...

[EmperorDinobot]

His field is less "paleontology" and more "professional dinosaur namer".

yeah, most of his papers are titled "A new..."
By the way, we can't find any Wikipedia entry on this paleo ?...

No, but I can translate you the whole hubub about it!

[DinoToyForum]

His field is less "paleontology" and more "professional dinosaur namer".

yeah, most of his papers are titled "A new..."
By the way, we can't find any Wikipedia entry on this paleo ?...

I'm not sure what the rules are for Wikipedia entries for scientists. I have 30+ peer reviewed papers under my belt, named half a dozen new species/genera, and published a few books (not to mention running the DinoToyBlog etc.), but nobody's created a Wikipedia page for me yet. So, don't read too much into that.

[DefinitelyNOTDilo]

Really it's just if anyone bothers to make one. I don't think ppl consider Longrich consequential enough.

[CharlieNovember]

I've heard that the paper was published through an organization tied to Longrich, so that could answer some of this.

indeed
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/fossstud/editors