Opinions on dubious/synonyms

[Zhuchengotyrant]

Hello, fellow DTF members!
I was just wondering;do any of you guys have specific dinosaurs that are usually considered synonymous or dubious that you still hold hope for? For example, I still hope that paleontologists find that Megapnosaurus is distinct from Coelophysis. I just wanted to know everyone's opinions.
Thanks!

[John]

The names are not so important to me as nothing had names when they were alive anyway.For instance,it does not matter to me that the ceratopsian often labeled as Monoclonius in pictures in the older books I grew up with turned out to actually be of Centrosaurus apertus or the old Trachodon images turned out to actually be showing what is now identified as Edmontosaurus annectens.I have never thought of them as "replacements" since we have never truly seen Monoclonius or Trachodon anyway even in those old books.It's like it was with the Brontosaurus vs. Apatosaurus situation.To me,the animal labeled as Brontosaurus never just disappeared,it was just living on to me as a species of Apatosaurus.When the two genera were separated again it was just switching a label again to me,not a "resurrection" of any lost dinosaur from my childhood.Same with Giraffatitan still being one of the classic dinosaurs I grew up with,despite it not being a species of Brachiosaurus. 

[Sim]

I dislike the name Tsaagan mangas and like the name Linheraptor exquisitus, so I can't help hoping that Linheraptor is valid!  Other than that though, I can't think of any others I hope would be valid.

Megapnosaurus is the name I'd most like to NOT be valid!  Megapnosaurus is a derogatory name and I basically dislike everything about it, for instance it's meaning and the circumstances that led to the creation of that name.

[Zhuchengotyrant]

@John: interesting take there! I've never thought of it like that!

@Sim : I actually want Megapnosaurus, just for Syntarsus lol. I usually pronounce Megapnosaurus as:
Me-gap-no-saurus

[Sim]

Zhuchengotyrant, which species that has gone under the name Syntarsus/Megapnosaurus are you thinking of?  Is it the species with crests on the snout (kayentakatae) or the one without those crests (rhodesiensis)?  I get the impression people often are thinking of the crested species kayentakatae, at least when they think of "Megapnosaurus".  For example, the first page of Google Images results for "megapnosaurus" all show kayentakatae.

However, kayentakatae is not the species that the name "Megapnosaurus" is attached to.  The species rhodesiensis is the one that was called Syntarsus first, kayentakatae was later named as a second species of Syntarsus.  The replacement name "Megapnosaurus" which was then applied to both of these species is also based on the crestless species rhodesiensis which is nearly identical to Coelophysis bauri.  The kayentakatae species is actually very different from Coelophysis bauri and rhodesiensis, and I think it's now accepted among palaeontologists that it belongs in a different genus.  This would mean that "Coelophysis" and "Megapnosaurus" can't be used for the kayentakatae species, even if Megapnosaurus isn't used for rhodesiensis.

[Zhuchengotyrant]

Whoa, so what would it be? Its not Coelophysis and Megapnosaurus isn't applicable. Syntarsus, of course, is preoccupied. Would they need to describe a whole new name?

[ZoPteryx]

I dislike the name Tsaagan mangas and like the name Linheraptor exquisitus, so I can't help hoping that Linheraptor is valid!

This!  Priority be damned! 

[Zhuchengotyrant]

I dislike the name Tsaagan mangas and like the name Linheraptor exquisitus, so I can't help hoping that Linheraptor is valid!

This!  Priority be damned! 

Luckily certain dinosaurs kept their later name, based on the quality of the remains. Allosaurus comes to mind. Thank GOODNESS that they kept Allosaurus because of the whole remains thing!

[Sim]

Whoa, so what would it be? Its not Coelophysis and Megapnosaurus isn't applicable. Syntarsus, of course, is preoccupied. Would they need to describe a whole new name?

It either needs a new genus name to be created for it, or for someone to publish evidence that shows it belongs in an existing genus.  I've been seeing palaeontologists referring to it as "Syntarsus" kayentakatae.  I get the impression this is because all three of the genus names used for this species are not right for it, so until it gets a genus that is right for it, it gets referred to by its original name (Syntarsus kayentakatae) with quotation marks around Syntarsus to indicate it's not a valid name for this species.  I'd like to see kayentakatae get a genus name that's valid for it.  It's a very distinctive looking dinosaur that needs a name!  I much prefer seeing palaeontologists give names to dinosaurs like this than ones known from poor remains.

I dislike the name Tsaagan mangas and like the name Linheraptor exquisitus, so I can't help hoping that Linheraptor is valid!

This!  Priority be damned! 

Hehe!

[Shadowknight1]

Not sure if this is what the top is about, but I can't call Brachiosaurus "Giraffatitan".  It feels wrong.

[MLMjp]

I think that is a misfortune that Troodon is now a dubious genus because of the holotype being fragmentary (Just teeth), specially since it is has gained a lot of popularity and it is regarded as the most intelligent dinosaur. I try to remedy this lost with it´s previously synonym but now valid genus Stenontychosaurus, since Troodon reconstructions were basically Stenonychosaurus, but the name Troodon keeps resonating in my head. Besides, it just sounds better.

Something like this happened to Stegosaurus with S.armatus now being dubious, but unlike Troodon, the name Stegosaurus was preserved because the name Stegosaurs stenops had been used for more that enough time and in a lot of papers, so the special rule of the ICZN could be applied and thus the genus was saved and S.stenops is now the type species. But unfortunately Troodon has not been around enough time.

Also I have a probably unpopular opinion regarding certain dinosaur that now is a valid genus but has been a synonym for a very long time, yes, I am talking about Brontosaurus. I remember a lot of people being happy about the genus being resurrected but I wasn't.

The good thing about this is that now people can say Brontosaurus and it will be correct. But with Brontosaurus resurrected, Apatosaurus has lost bit of it´s uniqueness. One of the most common facts about Apatosaurus in books and related media is that it was the true name for Brontosaurus, and also it was fun to always make corrections when someone said Brontosaurus. But now Apatosaurus, while still being a magnificent creature, has lost one of it´s main attributes. Besides now you can't have Brontosaurus in the main trio of Sauropods (Brachiosaurus, Diplodocus & Apatosaurus) because is not an Apatosaurus anymore.

[Sim]

Not sure if this is what the top is about, but I can't call Brachiosaurus "Giraffatitan".  It feels wrong.

This made me laugh!   Out of curiosity, why does it feel wrong to you?

[PumperKrickel]

deleted

[Shadowknight1]

Not sure if this is what the top is about, but I can't call Brachiosaurus "Giraffatitan".  It feels wrong.

This made me laugh!   Out of curiosity, why does it feel wrong to you?

For one thing, it's always been Brachiosaurus to me.  As far as I'm concerned, the species name that's been more noteworthy should take precedence over a different species name.  Plus, to be honest, Giraffatitan sounds dumb.

[Sim]

I think that is a misfortune that Troodon is now a dubious genus because of the holotype being fragmentary (Just teeth), specially since it is has gained a lot of popularity and it is regarded as the most intelligent dinosaur. I try to remedy this lost with it´s previously synonym but now valid genus Stenontychosaurus, since Troodon reconstructions were basically Stenonychosaurus, but the name Troodon keeps resonating in my head. Besides, it just sounds better.

I don't like how the name Troodon sounds, to me it sounds really weird.  I personally think showing that Troodon is dubious has been a very good thing.  I find it's made it easier to understand what is actually known of North American troodontids, in particular how incompletely known they actually are.  I feel the popularity "Troodon" gained obscured the reality of what is actually known of North American troodontids.

It's true that troodontids have a relatively large space for the brain compared to their body size.  However, in the paper that names Zanabazar I read that the space for the brain in "Troodon" is incompletely known, and estimates of the size of that area were based on reconstructions and it's not actually known if "Troodon" would've had a larger space for the brain than other troodontids.

Something like this happened to Stegosaurus with S.armatus now being dubious, but unlike Troodon, the name Stegosaurus was preserved because the name Stegosaurs stenops had been used for more that enough time and in a lot of papers, so the special rule of the ICZN could be applied and thus the genus was saved and S.stenops is now the type species. But unfortunately Troodon has not been around enough time.

I can't recall all the details, but I think there might be a bit more to it.  stenops was named as a species of Stegosaurus and has basically always been classified within Stegosaurus.  So when "armatus" the original type species of Stegosaurus was found to be dubious, there was the very well-known Stegosaurus species "stenops" that could be made the new type species for Stegosaurus.  In contrast, Troodon's identity has basically come from dropping other genera into Troodon, constantly creating problems with classification.  Add to this that these other genera don't even come from the same formation as the original Troodon tooth.  Based on this, to me it would've felt out of place to try to change what the name Troodon is attached to.

Besides now you can't have Brontosaurus in the main trio of Sauropods (Brachiosaurus, Diplodocus & Apatosaurus) because is not an Apatosaurus anymore.

Is there really such an unchanging main trio of sauropods?  Hasn't Brachiosaurus been represented with the species now called Giraffatitan?  Have there been times Brontosaurus was represented before Apatosaurus replaced it entirely?

[Sim]

I enjoyed reading the posts expressing dislike for the name "Giraffatitan"!   Personally, I do think Giraffatitan is a bad name.  I find the meaning of this name unsatisfying and I don't find the name sounds good.  The big problem I have with that name though is that the meaning is too obvious, the name is almost literally "giraffe titan".  It forces me to think of a souped-up giraffe when thinking of the dinosaur species with this name.

[Dinoguy2]

I think that is a misfortune that Troodon is now a dubious genus because of the holotype being fragmentary (Just teeth), specially since it is has gained a lot of popularity and it is regarded as the most intelligent dinosaur. I try to remedy this lost with it´s previously synonym but now valid genus Stenontychosaurus, since Troodon reconstructions were basically Stenonychosaurus, but the name Troodon keeps resonating in my head. Besides, it just sounds better.

I don't like how the name Troodon sounds, to me it sounds really weird.  I personally think showing that Troodon is dubious has been a very good thing.  I find it's made it easier to understand what is actually known of North American troodontids, in particular how incompletely known they actually are.  I feel the popularity "Troodon" gained obscured the reality of what is actually known of North American troodontids.

It's true that troodontids have a relatively large space for the brain compared to their body size.  However, in the paper that names Zanabazar I read that the space for the brain in "Troodon" is incompletely known, and estimates of the size of that area were based on reconstructions and it's not actually known if "Troodon" would've had a larger space for the brain than other troodontids.

Something like this happened to Stegosaurus with S.armatus now being dubious, but unlike Troodon, the name Stegosaurus was preserved because the name Stegosaurs stenops had been used for more that enough time and in a lot of papers, so the special rule of the ICZN could be applied and thus the genus was saved and S.stenops is now the type species. But unfortunately Troodon has not been around enough time.

I can't recall all the details, but I think there might be a bit more to it.  stenops was named as a species of Stegosaurus and has basically always been classified within Stegosaurus.  So when "armatus" the original type species of Stegosaurus was found to be dubious, there was the very well-known Stegosaurus species "stenops" that could be made the new type species for Stegosaurus.  In contrast, Troodon's identity has basically come from dropping other genera into Troodon, constantly creating problems with classification.  Add to this that these other genera don't even come from the same formation as the original Troodon tooth.  Based on this, to me it would've felt out of place to try to change what the name Troodon is attached to.

Besides now you can't have Brontosaurus in the main trio of Sauropods (Brachiosaurus, Diplodocus & Apatosaurus) because is not an Apatosaurus anymore.

Is there really such an unchanging main trio of sauropods?  Hasn't Brachiosaurus been represented with the species now called Giraffatitan?  Have there been times Brontosaurus was represented before Apatosaurus replaced it entirely?

The main trio of sauropods should be the OG set of Morosaurus, Atlantosaurus, and Amphicoelias. We should lump all titanosauriformes, apatosaurines (=Atlantosaurines!), and diplodocines (=Amphicoeliines!) into those three genera.
Signed, O.C. Marsh

[Newt]

Dynamosaurus is a way better name than Tyrannosaurus. Come on, let's submit an ICZN petition!