Tameryraptor markgrafi, a new Carcharodontosauridae from the late Cretaceous of Egypt

[Protopatch]

Munich paleontologists discover a new species of Carcharodontosaurid :

https://idw-online.de/en/news845737

By any chance, does anyone know where we can find the paper ?

[thomasw100]

Munich paleontologists discover a new species of Carcharodontosaurid :

https://idw-online.de/en/news845737

By any chance, does anyone know where we can find the paper ?

Kellermann M, Cuesta E, Rauhut OWM (2025) Re-evaluation of the Bahariya Formation car-charodontosaurid (Dinosauria: Theropoda) and its implications for allosauroid phylogeny. PLoS ONE 20(1): e0311096. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311096

[MLMjp]

Basically, thanks to a new photo, turns out the destroyed holotype of Carcharodontosaurus is different from the Neotype, so it's now a new genus.

[VD231991]

Basically, thanks to a new photo, turns out the destroyed holotype of Carcharodontosaurus is different from the Neotype, so it's now a new genus.

Ernst Stromer basically referred the Tameryraptor markgrafi holotype to Carcharodontosaurus saharicus and used it when establishing Carcharodontosaurus for saharicus because he noted similarities between the teeth of the Bahariya specimen and the syntype teeth of C. saharicus from Timimoun, Algeria.

[Protopatch]

Basically, thanks to a new photo, turns out the destroyed holotype of Carcharodontosaurus is different from the Neotype, so it's now a new genus.

Ernst Stromer basically referred the Tameryraptor markgrafi holotype to Carcharodontosaurus saharicus and used it when establishing Carcharodontosaurus for saharicus because he noted similarities between the teeth of the Bahariya specimen and the syntype teeth of C. saharicus from Timimoun, Algeria.

The enlightening exchanges between the lead author and the reviewers are also worth a reading :
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/peerReview?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0311096

They tell us a lot about how some of the reviewers were first highly skeptical about the result : "Without a testable specimen, any detail of such hypothesis is in an epistemological limbo, because we cannot replicate Stromer's observations used by the authors to erect that taxon. If two distinct authors disagree on some of the statements by Stromer used here to define the new species, how could such disagreement be solved? The objectivity principle dictates replicable statements based on accessible specimens: in absence of such specimen, and pending the discovery of a second specimen supporting Stromer's description, no new species should be erected."