Saurophaganax holotype material is a Sauropod!

[SenSx]

There's a lot of nuance being lost here. The SVP abstract suggests that the holotype material is not just one sauropod, but sauropod mones potentially mixed in with large allosaur remains. They aren't saying Saurophaganax was a sauropod, they're saying it's a chimera with sauropod bones included. Also, keep in mind that this is the paper description of an abstract of a presentation that hasn't been presented yet.

The holotype of Saurophaganax is just one vertebra and this upcoming paper argues it's a sauropod bone.  There is allosaurid remains too but they aren't part of the holotype.  See here for more info: https://theropoddatabase.github.io/Carnosauria.htm#Saurophaganaxmaximus  I wasn't aware Saurophaganax's holotype was so bad.  I think it's outrageous that species are named based on such awful remains.  And that this practice continues to this day.  It reminds me of how people were getting into Timurlengia and giving it lots of attention, when it's just a few isolated bones that weren't found together and were thought to be of one species even though there's nothing to support that.

Nooooo

Does it mean I should throw my PNSO Saurophaganax into the bin ?

If you want to get rid of it, I would suggest selling it or donating it instead of throwing it away...  I sold my Haolonggood Dacentrurus after it was established that species is the same as Miragaia.  But I don't see a reason you should part with your PNSO Saurophaganax, you could either use it as an Allosaurus fragilis (which is what its appearance is based on) or still have it be the largest allosaurid which might get a name change.

No of course I won't get rid of it, I was just joking.
I know it's based on Fragillis,I'm just a strict 1/35 colletors, so I was concerned about the size, but it's cool if we still have a big allo around.

[crazy8wizard]

I think since one of the authors involved (Matt Wedel) posted it on his own blog that it's okay to mention what he talked about there, but in general we really should be careful with non-published material since it's usually either embargoed or too obscure to have decent discussions about.

[Sim]

Interesting that in the past few days I've seen multiple "leaks" of dinosaur papers. Just the other day on Reddit there was something about a new species of Spinosaurus with a "scimitar shaped crest".

It might be all from the same source since its event is taking place.  Regarding the scimitar Spinosaurus, there's a number of things that can be said about it, but for now I'll just say that unless it's small which the abstract doesn't suggest, I predict figures of it will come relatively soon after its paper is published.  I'm almost certain it will be Eofauna's next theropod... unless it's small.

[Faelrin]

This is certainly interesting news. Looking forward to where it goes for the material currently assigned to it.

@Sim First time I've heard that the Zhenyuanlong material belongs to Tianyuraptor (possibly). I wouldn't find it too surprising though considering the similar proportions of both specimens. Or that there was some indication of coloration present. Where did you find out about this by chance?

[stargatedalek]

The holotype of Saurophaganax is just one vertebra and this upcoming paper argues it's a sauropod bone.  There is allosaurid remains too but they aren't part of the holotype.  See here for more info: https://theropoddatabase.github.io/Carnosauria.htm#Saurophaganaxmaximus  I wasn't aware Saurophaganax's holotype was so bad.  I think it's outrageous that species are named based on such awful remains.  And that this practice continues to this day.  It reminds me of how people were getting into Timurlengia and giving it lots of attention, when it's just a few isolated bones that weren't found together and were thought to be of one species even though there's nothing to support that.

People are reading about Saurophaganax being chimeric with sauropod material and incorrectly assuming the whole animal is based on sauropod material. Also the abstract mentions other axial bones being sauropod pieces too like the chevrons and neural arches.

It was named based on that sauropod material though. That sole vertebrae is the holotype, and it's a sauropod. Therefore, if the name is valid at all going forward, it is in reference to that sauropod.

[crazy8wizard]

It was named based on that sauropod material though. That sole vertebrae is the holotype, and it's a sauropod. Therefore, if the name is valid at all going forward, it is in reference to that sauropod.

I think if it is confirmed to be chimeric the name will be rejected, especially if the holotype material is non-diagnostic (which if it's one vertebra it probably is)

[Cretaceous Crab]

Nooooo

Does it mean I should throw my PNSO Saurophaganax into the bin ?

I mean, you can always give it away [hint hint]. LOL

[Sim]

I think if it is confirmed to be chimeric the name will be rejected, especially if the holotype material is non-diagnostic (which if it's one vertebra it probably is)

It can't be chimeric when the holotype is just one bone.  Also when Dakotaraptor was found to have a turtle bone, the bone was just removed and the name Dakotaraptor wasn't rejected.

[DefinitelyNOTDilo]

I think if it is confirmed to be chimeric the name will be rejected, especially if the holotype material is non-diagnostic (which if it's one vertebra it probably is)

It can't be chimeric when the holotype is just one bone.  Also when Dakotaraptor was found to have a turtle bone, the bone was just removed and the name Dakotaraptor wasn't rejected.

To be fair, even without the turtle bone, Dakota is likely chimeric. As for Saurophaganax, if the holotype turns out to be a sauropod, then the sauropod will get the name and the large allosaur will have to get a new name and holotype. The trouble for the name Saurophaganax is that, iirc, the features that made the vertebrae diagnostic for a theropod are common for sauropods, and thus it's likely to become a nomen dubium.

[Sim]

To be fair, even without the turtle bone, Dakota is likely chimeric.

How?  What I've seen suggests Dakotaraptor as currently known isn't chimeric.

[Sim]

@Sim First time I've heard that the Zhenyuanlong material belongs to Tianyuraptor (possibly). I wouldn't find it too surprising though considering the similar proportions of both specimens. Or that there was some indication of coloration present. Where did you find out about this by chance?

I think I came across it in a discussion on Wikipedia, and later Zhenyuanlong was synonymised with Tianyuraptor on The Theropod Database here: https://theropoddatabase.github.io/Dromaeosaurs.htm#Tianyuraptorostromi

[DefinitelyNOTDilo]

To be fair, even without the turtle bone, Dakota is likely chimeric.

How?  What I've seen suggests Dakotaraptor as currently known isn't chimeric.

I've heard from some knowledgeable friends that a lot of the material still in the holotype bears a strong resemblance to Caenagnathids and juvenile Tyrannosaurs

[DefinitelyNOTDilo]

The truth is until DePalma decides to let the specimens out of his private collection for other authors to inspect then there's no way to determine if it's valid or not. But I doubt he'll ever do that as he's more interested in headlines than actual science.

[Sim]

I've heard from some knowledgeable friends that a lot of the material still in the holotype bears a strong resemblance to Caenagnathids and juvenile Tyrannosaurs

This has spread widely and it's not as reliable as one might first think.  That parts of Dakotaraptor belong to Anzu has been disproved: https://thesauropodomorphlair.wordpress.com/2019/09/28/nuking-anzuraptor/
As for the Dakotaraptor sickle claw being a Tyrannosaurus hand claw, it's possible, but I think it's equally possible it really does belong to Dakotaraptor.  There's only so many ways a claw can look.

[crazy8wizard]

I think if it is confirmed to be chimeric the name will be rejected, especially if the holotype material is non-diagnostic (which if it's one vertebra it probably is)

It can't be chimeric when the holotype is just one bone.  Also when Dakotaraptor was found to have a turtle bone, the bone was just removed and the name Dakotaraptor wasn't rejected.

But there are other bones stated to be sauropod that aren't in the holotype such as chevrons sand neural arches around the thorax. It's more than just the one bone.

[stargatedalek]

I think if it is confirmed to be chimeric the name will be rejected, especially if the holotype material is non-diagnostic (which if it's one vertebra it probably is)

It can't be chimeric when the holotype is just one bone.  Also when Dakotaraptor was found to have a turtle bone, the bone was just removed and the name Dakotaraptor wasn't rejected.

But there are other bones stated to be sauropod that aren't in the holotype such as chevrons sand neural arches around the thorax. It's more than just the one bone.

There are other chimeric bones yes, but they are not the holotype. The holotype is a singular vertebrae.

[VD231991]

@Sim First time I've heard that the Zhenyuanlong material belongs to Tianyuraptor (possibly). I wouldn't find it too surprising though considering the similar proportions of both specimens. Or that there was some indication of coloration present. Where did you find out about this by chance?

I think I came across it in a discussion on Wikipedia, and later Zhenyuanlong was synonymised with Tianyuraptor on The Theropod Database here: https://theropoddatabase.github.io/Dromaeosaurs.htm#Tianyuraptorostromi

Mickey Mortimer mentioned an SVP 2018 abstract titled "A new specimen of the large-bodied dromaeosaurid Tianyuraptor provides new insights on microraptorine anatomy, taxonomy, and plumage evolution" reporting a new Tianyuraptor specimen exhibiting characters thought to distinguish Tianyuraptor from Zhenyuanlong.