New data on Edmontosaurus anatomy, and the sinking of Ugrunaaluk

[Dinoguy2]

Another paper, from different authors, suggesting Ugrunaaluk is a synonym of Edmontosaurus, best referred to as Edmontosaurus sp. for now.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0232410

If I'm remembering correctly, once a fossil has received a taxonomic name it has to either be referred to with that name or be sunk into a pre-existing genus, no? So even if Ugrunaaluk is a junior synonym of Edmontosaurus, which I'm leaning towards, then it has to be either U. or E. kuukpikensis rather than E. sp.

If it's strictly a 'lumping' exercise, that's true. If _. kuukpikensis is a diagnosable, distinct taxon, but not so different to warrant its own genus, it would be combined with existing Edmontosaurus species as E. kuukpikensis. But I think the argument being advanced is that it's not only very similar to existing Edmontosaurus species, but also that it doesn't share enough ontogenetically overlapping material with those species to make a defensible hypothesis about its distinctness. It's basically like saying it's Edmontosaurus incertae sedis.

That would make it a numen dubium then, rather than a synonym.

[Halichoeres]

Another paper, from different authors, suggesting Ugrunaaluk is a synonym of Edmontosaurus, best referred to as Edmontosaurus sp. for now.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0232410

If I'm remembering correctly, once a fossil has received a taxonomic name it has to either be referred to with that name or be sunk into a pre-existing genus, no? So even if Ugrunaaluk is a junior synonym of Edmontosaurus, which I'm leaning towards, then it has to be either U. or E. kuukpikensis rather than E. sp.

If it's strictly a 'lumping' exercise, that's true. If _. kuukpikensis is a diagnosable, distinct taxon, but not so different to warrant its own genus, it would be combined with existing Edmontosaurus species as E. kuukpikensis. But I think the argument being advanced is that it's not only very similar to existing Edmontosaurus species, but also that it doesn't share enough ontogenetically overlapping material with those species to make a defensible hypothesis about its distinctness. It's basically like saying it's Edmontosaurus incertae sedis.

That would make it a numen dubium then, rather than a synonym.

I could be mistaken, but I think that if material is 1) sufficiently diagnostic to place in a genus, but not enough to assign it to an existing genus within that species, and 2) it has already been given its own genus, the genus can be subsumed as a subjective junior synonym of another genus even as the the species name could be regarded as a nomen dubium. In that case, Ugrunaaluk would be a subjective junior synonym of Edmontosaurus, and the specific combinations U. kuukpikensis and E. kuukpikensis  would be nomina dubia.

[austrosaurus]

Another paper, from different authors, suggesting Ugrunaaluk is a synonym of Edmontosaurus, best referred to as Edmontosaurus sp. for now.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0232410

If I'm remembering correctly, once a fossil has received a taxonomic name it has to either be referred to with that name or be sunk into a pre-existing genus, no? So even if Ugrunaaluk is a junior synonym of Edmontosaurus, which I'm leaning towards, then it has to be either U. or E. kuukpikensis rather than E. sp.

If it's strictly a 'lumping' exercise, that's true. If _. kuukpikensis is a diagnosable, distinct taxon, but not so different to warrant its own genus, it would be combined with existing Edmontosaurus species as E. kuukpikensis. But I think the argument being advanced is that it's not only very similar to existing Edmontosaurus species, but also that it doesn't share enough ontogenetically overlapping material with those species to make a defensible hypothesis about its distinctness. It's basically like saying it's Edmontosaurus incertae sedis.

That would make it a numen dubium then, rather than a synonym.

I could be mistaken, but I think that if material is 1) sufficiently diagnostic to place in a genus, but not enough to assign it to an existing genus within that species, and 2) it has already been given its own genus, the genus can be subsumed as a subjective junior synonym of another genus even as the the species name could be regarded as a nomen dubium. In that case, Ugrunaaluk would be a subjective junior synonym of Edmontosaurus, and the specific combinations U. kuukpikensis and E. kuukpikensis  would be nomina dubia.

Yeah, that's the point I was trying to make. Sorry we got our wires crossed.