What should "Dilophosaurus" sinensis be renamed?

[Yutyrannus]

I have created this topic so that anyone can post what they think "Dilophosaurus" sinensis should be renamed.
Personally I think it should be called Paradilophosaurus sinensis, because Paradilophosaurus means "Near Dilophosaurus".

[Horridus]

Dilophoraptorex?

[Eriorguez]

Dicristatosaurus.

[Sharptooth]

Never understood the fascination with over-complicated names... And why D. sinensis should be renamed? Ok, it's a different species, granted, but it's still a dilophosaurid, so i don't see a REAL reason to rename it other than showing how paleontologists are clever at naming stuff.
Just like with "Giraffatitan Brancai"... It was an african brachiosaurid so why don't stick with the classical name?   


(No offense to anyone in the field, mind ya  )

[Horridus]

Just like with "Giraffatitan Brancai"... It was an african brachiosaurid so why don't stick with the classical name?   

(No offense to anyone in the field, mind ya  )

Well, it's entirely a matter of opinion, of course. However, Mike Taylor made a good case for the generic separation of Giraffatitan brancai - he compared every single known bone, and found the differences between the two animals to be greater than those between Diplodocus and Barosaurus. Really, while both brachiosaurs, they were quite different animals.

(By the way, the name's not his - it's Greg Paul's.)

[Sharptooth]

I know there are MANY differences between the two animals but, as i said, they're still both brachiosaurids, that's why it seems (at least to me) unnecessary to give the african one a new name... Another example is the splitting of Iguanodon into Dollodon/Mantellisaurus/whateversaurus; i reckon they are different species, but considering they're still friggin' iguanodontids, why complicate the matter? A tiger and a lion are both scientifically named "Panthera", so i ask you again: why should be different with dinosaurs?
"Common names" should be usually different for every species, but when it comes to "scientific names", well, the goal would be to make things simpler, hence i'd say i'm partially agree with Greg Paul when it comes to lump names (not in every case, of course).

But as you say it's a very subjective matter, so i'll stop here.

[Gwangi]

Dinosaurs don't have common names, their genus name is the name they're commonly referred to as. Personally I would much rather have both Tyrannosaurus and Tarbosaurus (as an example) and refer to them as such rather than have to distinguish the two using their species name. It is much less a PITA to say "There is a Tyrannosaur in Asia called Tarbosaurus" than it is to say "There is a Tyrannosaur in Asia called Tyrannosaurus battar."

[Sharptooth]

Dinosaurs don't have common names, their genus name is the name they're commonly referred to as.

That's why, i think, their "scientific names" should be simple; however i see your point...

[Pachyrhinosaurus]

You have a good point. I would hate to call styracosaurus, rubeosaurus, eineiosaurus, achelousaurus, Pachyrhinosaurus lakustai, P. perotorum,  and P. canadensis 'Centrosaurus'.

I think Yunnanlophosaurus sinensis would be a good coice for naming, although I do like shorter names like balaur.

[Gwangi]

Though I oppose lumping I do believe that if dinosaurs were alive today many would belong to the same genus. Tarbosaurus and Tyrannosaurus probably were just as related as lions and tigers. I think that since we're dealing with extinct animals however, who's scientific names are also the common names that they should be exempt from the same rules of classification as extant animals. What I'm saying is, I understand your argument. To me though, splitting them up actually is simpler.

[Takama]

Dilovenator sinensis

[CityRaptor]

I was actually just about to suggest a similar name: Dilophovenator.

[Yutyrannus]

Dilovenator sinensis

You do know that means "Double hunter" right? I think Dilophovenator (Double crested hunter), on the other hand is a great name! I actually like it more than the name I came up with .

[Takama]

Dilovenator sinensis

You do know that means "Double hunter" right? I think Dilophovenator (Double crested hunter), on the other hand is a great name! I actually like it more than the name I came up with .

Thanks for the correction. I was thinking of "Two crested hunter" like Cityraptor

but come to think of it

since the species is similar to  Dilophosaurus wetherlii it could be referd to it as Doubled hunter, because it would look like a double toward Dilophosaurus Wethlerlii

[Eriorguez]

Never understood the fascination with over-complicated names... And why D. sinensis should be renamed? Ok, it's a different species, granted, but it's still a dilophosaurid, so i don't see a REAL reason to rename it other than showing how paleontologists are clever at naming stuff.
Just like with "Giraffatitan Brancai"... It was an african brachiosaurid so why don't stick with the classical name?   


(No offense to anyone in the field, mind ya  )

They aren't sister taxa, therefore one would have to lump into Dilophosaurus all the taxa closer to one than to the other to have a monophyletic clade. In every phylogenetic study nowadays it would have to lump Cryolophosaurus into Dilophosaurus, and, with the newer analysis that places D.sinensis and Cryo as closer to Tetanurae than to Ceratosauria (but Dilophosaurs remains basal to Ceratosauria+Tetanurae), Dilophosaurus would end up being ALL theropods closer to birds than to Coelophysis.

So no, they are VERY different animals, and not each other's closest relatives.

[Sharptooth]

They aren't sister taxa, therefore one would have to lump into Dilophosaurus all the taxa closer to one than to the other to have a monophyletic clade.

But considering many of these classifications are mostly made up and not "real" (just look at the various phylogenetic studies that make a certain taxon jump in this or that genus), what's wrong with, for example, lumping all the taxa into "Dilophosaurus" (Dilophosaurus ellioti, Dilophosaurus sinensis, dilophosaurus regenti, etc.)... I'm not saying that using this kind of classification in the study of dinosaurs is wrong, but it's far from perfect (the only way to say who's relative to what would be studyin' their DNA but, sadly, it can't fossilize).

[Yutyrannus]

Dilovenator sinensis

You do know that means "Double hunter" right? I think Dilophovenator (Double crested hunter), on the other hand is a great name! I actually like it more than the name I came up with .

Thanks for the correction. I was thinking of "Two crested hunter" like Cityraptor

but come to think of it

since the species is similar to  Dilophosaurus wetherlii it could be referd to it as Doubled hunter, because it would look like a double toward Dilophosaurus Wethlerlii

Good point. I never thought of it that way.

[Horridus]

But considering many of these classifications are mostly made up and not "real" (just look at the various phylogenetic studies that make a certain taxon jump in this or that genus), what's wrong with, for example, lumping all the taxa into "Dilophosaurus" (Dilophosaurus ellioti, Dilophosaurus sinensis, dilophosaurus regenti, etc.)... I'm not saying that using this kind of classification in the study of dinosaurs is wrong, but it's far from perfect (the only way to say who's relative to what would be studyin' their DNA but, sadly, it can't fossilize).

Perhaps we should lump all large carnivorous dinosaurs into Megalosaurus, all iguanodonts into Iguanodon and all plesiosaurs into Plesiosaurus...hey, waitaminute...

[Sharptooth]

Perhaps we should lump all large carnivorous dinosaurs into Megalosaurus, all iguanodonts into Iguanodon and all plesiosaurs into Plesiosaurus...hey, waitaminute...

Ehy, that's actually a great idea!

...



...



... What the HECK?!            

[Takama]

But considering many of these classifications are mostly made up and not "real" (just look at the various phylogenetic studies that make a certain taxon jump in this or that genus), what's wrong with, for example, lumping all the taxa into "Dilophosaurus" (Dilophosaurus ellioti, Dilophosaurus sinensis, dilophosaurus regenti, etc.)... I'm not saying that using this kind of classification in the study of dinosaurs is wrong, but it's far from perfect (the only way to say who's relative to what would be studyin' their DNA but, sadly, it can't fossilize).

Perhaps we should lump all large carnivorous dinosaurs into Megalosaurus, all iguanodonts into Iguanodon and all plesiosaurs into Plesiosaurus...hey, waitaminute...

WASTEBASKETS!!!!!!!!!!