Prehistoric animals that need a scientific name

[Primeval12]

This pterosaur that Safari made.

[Sim]

Thanks for the suggestion!  That's the African pterosaur.  Apparently it's based on a specimen that lacked a skull which is why it hasn't been named.  More on that can be read here: http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=2821.msg77459#msg77459

I won't add it to the list since a skull is needed to identify what species it is.

[Sim]

I've added to the list some images of "Cephalaspis" and "Prognathodon" species.  In case anyone missed it earlier, I've also added species that fall outside the genus Nothosaurus.

[Gothmog the Baryonyx]

I've added to the list some images of "Cephalaspis" and "Prognathodon" species.  In case anyone missed it earlier, I've also added species that fall outside the genus Nothosaurus.

Is it a consensus that those species should be removed from Nothosaurus now?

[Sim]

I'm not certain about it, but it's the impression I'm getting.  The latest on this I think is the paper describing Nothosaurus cristatus.  I've only been able to read the abstract as the paper is paywalled, and it does say that only four of the species are present in a monophyletic Nothosaurus: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02724634.2019.1585364

In a reply here, Darren Naish also said he supports bringing back Conchiosaurus and Paranothosaurus: https://twitter.com/TetZoo/status/647370063918534656

To me it seems there's been too much lumping going on with regards to nothosaurids.

[austrosaurus]

I'm not certain about it, but it's the impression I'm getting.  The latest on this I think is the paper describing Nothosaurus cristatus.  I've only been able to read the abstract as the paper is paywalled, and it does say that only four of the species are present in a monophyletic Nothosaurus: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02724634.2019.1585364

In a reply here, Darren Naish also said he supports bringing back Conchiosaurus and Paranothosaurus: https://twitter.com/TetZoo/status/647370063918534656

To me it seems there's been too much lumping going on with regards to nothosaurids.

It makes me wonder if some polyspecific dinosaur species (i.e. Psittacosaurus) are overlumped, although in Psittacosaurus' case there aren't many species in that general area of the ceratopsian tree that could threaten its monophyly the same way Lariosaurus, Ceresiosaurus etc. impact Nothosaurus.

[Funk]

Have a look at this and its subcategories: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Unnamed_extinct_Animalia

[Sim]

Thanks for the link @Funk, I've added to the list the polydactylous hupehsuchian, Nurosaurus, "Plesiosaurus" macrocephalus, the Richmond polycotylid and the Painten pro-pterodactyloid.

A @austrosaurus, I've sometimes thought Psittacosaurus sibiricus should be split from Psittacosaurus as it's quite different from other species in the genus.  And If P. sinensis also has to be split for that to happen, then so be it.  It seems to me new ceratopsid species have been named with less difference to other species than the amount of difference P. sibiricus shows to other Psittacosaurus species.

[Sim]

I've added "Callawayia" wolonggangensis to the list in the first post!

[austrosaurus]

Would it be a good idea to note when a species on the list gets a formal name & description, rather than removing them from the list altogether? I feel like it would be helpful for people who check regularly.

[Sim]

A @austrosaurus, I could do that.  When a species receives the scientific name it needs, I was thinking of quoting the information about them from the first post so that it could still be viewed again.  An alternative could be to do what you said and maybe split species that have been named from the ones that still need a name, in the first post.  Let me know if you have a preference.

[Sim]

I've added species that have been classified in Steneosaurus to the list!

[austrosaurus]

I've added species that have been classified in Steneosaurus to the list!

I think with Steneosaurus it would be more helpful to pull a Cetiosaurus/Iguanodon and transfer the type species to something a bit more substantial rather than coming up with at least one, and potentially more than three, new names.

"Gallimimus mongoliensis"
Image: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gallimimus_in_Ulaanbaatar.jpg
Comments: This differs from Gallimimus bullatus in some details including a smaller skull and may belong to a different genus.

Given that "G. mongoliensis" is from the much older Bayan Shireh Formation (~90-85 mya), it's almost certain that if/when it gets described it will not be as a second species of Gallimimus.

[Sim]

I've added Guizhouichthyosaurus sp. to the list.

[Logo7]

Species that have been classified in Prognathodon
Images of "P." kianda can be seen here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228489425_A_new_species_of_Prognathodon_Squamata_Mosasauridae_from_the_Maastrichtian_of_Angola_and_the_affinities_of_the_mosasaur_genus_Liodon
Image of "P." overtoni: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tyrrell_mosasaur.jpg
Image of "P." stadtmani: https://twitter.com/joshuarlively/status/763380642918785025/photo/1
Comments: A number of species that have been classified in Prognathodon have been found to fall outside this genus and may need to be placed in a different genus.

"P." stadtmani has finally received its own scientific name (Gnathomortis stadtmani), so it should be removed from the list (Paper link: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/10.1080/02724634.2020.1784183).

However, in addition to "P." kianda and "P" overtoni, there are still more disputed species contained in Prognathodon that will likely need their own genera. Specifically, there's "P." rapax, "P." stauratur, and "P." waiparensis. These three disputed species should probably be added to the list as well.

[Sim]

Thanks L @Logo7!  I've removed Gnathomortis stadtmani from the list, it's former entry can be seen below:

Image of "P." stadtmani: https://twitter.com/joshuarlively/status/763380642918785025/photo/1

The Prognathodon species that are listed by name are ones I can find a good image of, if they aren't listed I didn't find a satisfactory image of that species's remains.

I've added species that have been classified in Steneosaurus to the list!

I think with Steneosaurus it would be more helpful to pull a Cetiosaurus/Iguanodon and transfer the type species to something a bit more substantial rather than coming up with at least one, and potentially more than three, new names.

A @austrosaurus, Mickey Mortimer has gone further and argued that Steneosaurus shouldn't be considered a nomen dubium at all: http://theropoddatabase.blogspot.com/2020/06/the-unecessary-death-of-steneosaurus.html  I've updated this genus's entry to reflect this.

[TethysaurusUK]

Interesting positioning of P. currii in the phylogenetic analysis. The homoplasy in the features and fusion of the 'Globidensini', Plesiotylosaurus and P. currii definitely shows a re-assessment of these mosasaurines is needed to clear up this issue.

[Halichoeres]

There are three guitarfishes from the Cretaceous of Lebanon which do not have names as far as I'm aware, although the authors of this paper think that only two genera are necessary to accommodate the three species: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0bb7/b992ea4deecdea8ea835ec7d95cebbf28d96.pdf?_ga=2.242420609.2043346873.1601244951-140719764.1601244951

No types have been designated, again, as far as I know, but they are likely to be based upon the following specimens:
LB-V-2015-01 (gen. nov. 1 sp. 1)
NHMD-74748 (gen. nov. 1 sp. 2)
LB-V-2016-1 (gen. nov. 2)

[Sim]

@Halichoeres, I've added them to the list.

[TethysaurusUK]

@Halichoeres, I've added them to the list.

Don't know if 'Platecarpus' ptychodon is on the list, if it is then take it off. Introducing Gavialimimus almaghribensis the longirostrinal mosasaur of the Oulad Abdoun Maastrichtian phosphates.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14772019.2020.1818322?needAccess=true&instName=University+of+Portsmouth