Saurophaganax holotype material is a Sauropod!

[Ajax88]

Interesting stuff, but it seems the holotype axial material of our favorite big allosaur was actually based on sauropod remains. A massive redescription is apparently nearly through peer-review and should shed light on what material is legit, new names?, and a much better description of the remaining giant Allosaurid material variously assigned to Saurophaganax. Can't wait to read it and see how the naming is handled.

More can be found at the Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week Blog and in the blog comments.

[stargatedalek]

Called this years ago. Even with the somewhat weird (for an Allosaur) vertebrae I was always iffy on it warranting a genus level distinction. Can't wait for what's left to finally get sunk into Allosaurus.

[CityRaptor]

Bro ate so many Sauropods, he turned into one!

But seriously, that is a rather interesting development. 

[SenSx]

Nooooo

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

[Elengassen]

Nooooo

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

I don't see why. It's mostly based on Allosaurus fragilis anyway; that's what I use mine as.

[crazy8wizard]

Interesting stuff, but it seems the holotype axial material of our favorite big allosaur was actually based on sauropod remains. A massive redescription is apparently nearly through peer-review and should shed light on what material is legit, new names?, and a much better description of the remaining giant Allosaurid material variously assigned to Saurophaganax. Can't wait to read it and see how the naming is handled.

More can be found at the Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week Blog and in the blog comments.

There's a lot of nuance being lost here. The SVP abstract suggests that the holotype material is not just one sauropod, but sauropod bones 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.

[MLMjp]

This information was leaked a couple of days ago and technically it should NOT have been revealed until the study was published...

Will the Allosaur remains still retain the name Saurophaganax? Will the Sauropod ones get it? Will the name Saurophaganax disappear? And if so.. there will be Allosaurus maximus or something else?

Nooooo

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

Just use it as a regular Allosaurus...

[dinofelid]

Nooooo

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

The most recent entry on Sauropod Vertebra of the Week mentions that even if the axial elements (vertebrae) belonged to a sauropod, "That still leaves a big pile of material from a really big allosaurid." Someone drew a skeletal here and some more here, don't know how accurate/complete they are though, the "material" text beside the diagram doesn't include OMNH 01123 which the wiki article says is the holotype. Maybe the non-axial material could get a new name or be reclassified as a big Allosaurus--I guess we'd have to wait and see if this led to any significant revisions to the size estimates to see if the PNSO becomes outdated.

[Ajax88]

Interesting stuff, but it seems the holotype axial material of our favorite big allosaur was actually based on sauropod remains. A massive redescription is apparently nearly through peer-review and should shed light on what material is legit, new names?, and a much better description of the remaining giant Allosaurid material variously assigned to Saurophaganax. Can't wait to read it and see how the naming is handled.

More can be found at the Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week Blog and in the blog comments.

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.

Yes, of course, there is still a giant Allosaurid out there in the material. It just might not get to keep the name we are all used to.

[Sim]

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.

[oscars_dinos]

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.

it has always been a allosaurus to me, I skipped pnso's first allo because I thought it looked ugly lol

[Shane]

This information was leaked a couple of days ago and technically it should NOT have been revealed until the study was published...

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".

[Sim]

I guess we'd have to wait and see if this led to any significant revisions to the size estimates to see if the PNSO becomes outdated.

PNSO's figures in the series their Saurophaganax is in don't have a scale assigned to them, so it couldn't become outdated if the size changes.

This information was leaked a couple of days ago and technically it should NOT have been revealed until the study was published...

Makes sense.  But sometimes this is the only way some information is learnt, for example of the paper that synonymises Zhenyuanlong with Tianyuraptor based on an adult specimen with features of both genera, which also preserved feathers that showed it had a I think dark stripe around the neck if I'm remembering correctly.  I'm very disappointed that paper seems to have never been made public.

[crazy8wizard]

This information was leaked a couple of days ago and technically it should NOT have been revealed until the study was published...

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".

The SVP Abstract book released online. Keep in mind, lots of material is embargoed!

[crazy8wizard]

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.

[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".

Thanks for sharing that, Shane!  I've found the abstract and a photo of it, I'll start a thread for it!

[crazy8wizard]

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".

Thanks for sharing that, Shane!  I've found the abstract and a photo of it, I'll start a thread for it!

The spinosaurus abstract is embargoed! I wouldn't post that if I were you.

[Sim]

I was thinking of just sharing the main points and that a simple search can find it..  It's already in the public realm...

[Shane]

I was thinking of just sharing the main points and that a simple search can find it..  It's already in the public realm...

Yeah I didn't want to post a link directly to what I read because I wasn't sure what the protocol was about sharing that, but did want to mention that it was out there in the interest of the forum..

[Sim]

Alright, I won't make a thread for that new Spinosaurus species, although isn't the situation for it the same as the topic of this thread, the stuff about Saurophaganax?