Stegosaurus armatus no more?

[MLMjp]

It seems that Stegosaurus armatus is no longer the type species of stegosaurus, due to the lack of proper material of it Stegosaurus stenops is now the type species.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00015-010-0022-4

Wikipedia also says that. The valid species now are S. stenos and S.ungulatus:

[Simon]

It seems that Stegosaurus armatus is no longer the type species of stegosaurus, due to the lack of proper material of it Stegosaurus stenops is now the type species.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00015-010-0022-4

Wikipedia also says that. The valid species now are S. stenos and S.ungulatus:

That annoying graphic above understates the size of the largest Stegosaurus, showing it as just a bit over 7M, while the Wikipaedia text clearly states that largest individuals were up to 9M long - I wish the author would re-work the diagram.  For some reason Stegosaurus seems to be the LONE dinosaur whose reconstructions (like the one above) are consistently made well below its known maximum size, while for all other dinosaurs it seems to me that the opposite is often the problem ...

[MLMjp]

Maybe this time the graffic does not show the maximum size. I just put it int the post to filled un my comment a bit

[Sim]

Ultimately, what's made Stegosaurus armatus a nomen dubium is that it's based on very fragmentary remains.  This kind of thing is what's rendered entire genera nomen dubiums, e.g. Thespesius, Trachodon, Nuthetes and Thaumatosaurus.

Quite a number of animals have been named based on very fragmentary remains.  This has led to a lot of time being spent dealing with the confusion caused by this.  It seems this has come to an end for Stegosaurus, with S. armatus becoming a nomen dubium, and the much more complete S. stenops becoming the new type species.  Pretty much the same has happened with Iguanodon, and seems to be happening with Diplodocus.  Something similar has happened with Coelophysis, where the ICZN transferred the type specimen of Coelophysis from the poorly preserved original specimen to one of the well-preserved Ghost Ranch specimens.  Allosaurus too is named on very fragmentary remains that could make it a nomen dubium, and this has actually happened twice, first when it was known as Antrodemus which has become a nomen dubium, and for a second time as Allosaurus.  To avoid Allosaurus becoming a nomen dubium Greg Paul and Kenneth Carpenter submitted a petition to the ICZN in 2010 to have the name "Allosaurus fragilis" officially transferred to a more complete specimen.  I haven't seen any updates on this.

I'm curious about what will happen to Troodon.  It was named based on a single tooth and it looks like this might lead to it becoming a nomen dubium.  I wonder what the different diagnostic specimens assigned to Troodon will end up being called, it appears there's quite a number of different species!  I'd be very happy if Oviraptor became a nomen dubium as its binomial is one of the silliest and worst names ever.  It's named based on very incomplete and poorly preserved remains so it could happen...

I'm a bit sad that Stegosaurus armatus is gone as I thought it was the nicest Stegosaurus species name.  It means "armoured roof lizard".  Stegosaurus stenops means "narrow-faced roof lizard", and Stegosaurus ungulatus, means "hoofed roof lizard".  These two names could be a lot worse, but they're nowhere near as great as "Stegosaurus armatus".  Sigh.  Oh well.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

It seems that Stegosaurus armatus is no longer the type species of stegosaurus, due to the lack of proper material of it Stegosaurus stenops is now the type species.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00015-010-0022-4

Wikipedia also says that. The valid species now are S. stenos and S.ungulatus:

That annoying graphic above understates the size of the largest Stegosaurus, showing it as just a bit over 7M, while the Wikipaedia text clearly states that largest individuals were up to 9M long - I wish the author would re-work the diagram.  For some reason Stegosaurus seems to be the LONE dinosaur whose reconstructions (like the one above) are consistently made well below its known maximum size, while for all other dinosaurs it seems to me that the opposite is often the problem ...

Wow..yeah totally not showing the maximum range there at all. Stegosaurus really seems to get the short end of the stick ( pardon the pun) much of the time. While building ours here at the Park  I have had to actually tell a few people what it is. Thank goodness most of the kids know still.  Stegosaurus deserves so much more attention than it's given.

[jooooo]

It seems that Stegosaurus armatus is no longer the type species of stegosaurus, due to the lack of proper material of it Stegosaurus stenops is now the type species.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00015-010-0022-4

Wikipedia also says that. The valid species now are S. stenos and S.ungulatus:

That annoying graphic above understates the size of the largest Stegosaurus, showing it as just a bit over 7M, while the Wikipaedia text clearly states that largest individuals were up to 9M long - I wish the author would re-work the diagram.  For some reason Stegosaurus seems to be the LONE dinosaur whose reconstructions (like the one above) are consistently made well below its known maximum size, while for all other dinosaurs it seems to me that the opposite is often the problem ...

Dinosaur lengths are measured along the length of the spine. I got out a tape measure and axial length was about 9m. Posides these are about the different species. Not largest specimens.

[Halichoeres]

This has been an enlightening thread. Thanks to the contributors.

[Dinoguy2]

It seems that Stegosaurus armatus is no longer the type species of stegosaurus, due to the lack of proper material of it Stegosaurus stenops is now the type species.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00015-010-0022-4

Wikipedia also says that. The valid species now are S. stenos and S.ungulatus:

That annoying graphic above understates the size of the largest Stegosaurus, showing it as just a bit over 7M, while the Wikipaedia text clearly states that largest individuals were up to 9M long - I wish the author would re-work the diagram.  For some reason Stegosaurus seems to be the LONE dinosaur whose reconstructions (like the one above) are consistently made well below its known maximum size, while for all other dinosaurs it seems to me that the opposite is often the problem ...

Maximum length is measured along the vertebral column in a straight line, not hypothetical life position, in most publications. Scaling an image like this to maximum length not taking into account the different postures and curvatures in the spine will throw the whole thing way off. I scale these directly to individual inflexible elements like femur length, and get what I get. This is scaled directly to the holotype of S. ungulatus (also the largest of that species afaik) with femur length and ulna length compensated. Measuring along the spine gives a length of just about 9m matching the largest estimates. Of course life posture shortens that as with all animals except snakes. If I stretched it out to 9m the femur would be well over 2m long! That's sauropod size. The Yale ungulatus femur is 1.3 m as shown here.

Of course if you know of a larger specimen that could be referred to ungulatus if appreciate the reference and re scale to those elements.

Stegosaurus is one of the few species where there is a noticeable discrepancy because of the highly arched back due to small forelimbs.

[Simon]

dinoguy2 - Thanks for your explanation.  That makes sense.  Especially the part about the arched back.  I can "see" it now ...