Say Goodbye to Kronosaurus!

[Gwangi]

It wouldn't bother me when names become obsolete if they at least replaced them with equally catchy names. Shouldn't be too difficult. Something like Kronotitan, or whatever. 

[stargatedalek]

They didn't establish a neotype though. Even if the research is valid (which, not obvious enough to my eye to say) they've gone about this the wrong way and it's not going to stick.

[Shane]

If Manospondylus can be Tyrannosaurus, then dang it, Eiectus can be Kronosaurus.

[GojiraGuy1954]

Oh dear... I suppose I'll have to change my moniker. BlueMonquira?

The paper will probably get a rebuttal since it's so easy to assign Krono a neotype. These authors just wanted that sweet sweet press release and 5 minutes of fame

. . . why would you say such a thing like that?

Renaming krono does more harm than good to Pliosaur palaeontology.

No, not really, even if some people don't like the change. And it's pretty insulting to accuse the authors of only being concerned about fame.

It'd be like making Tyrannosaurus invalid in favour of Manospondylus in the modern day. It's a dumb change that will complicate Pliosaur studies a LOT and probably won't even stick in the end.

[suspsy]

Oh dear... I suppose I'll have to change my moniker. BlueMonquira?

The paper will probably get a rebuttal since it's so easy to assign Krono a neotype. These authors just wanted that sweet sweet press release and 5 minutes of fame

. . . why would you say such a thing like that?

Renaming krono does more harm than good to Pliosaur palaeontology.

No, not really, even if some people don't like the change. And it's pretty insulting to accuse the authors of only being concerned about fame.

It'd be like making Tyrannosaurus invalid in favour of Manospondylus in the modern day.

The situations are not comparable. A more valid comparison would be Elmer S. Riggs' to do away with Brontosaurus in favour of Apatosaurus. And despite some people's disappointment, it really didn't harm sauropod research in the long run. 

It's a dumb change that will complicate Pliosaur studies a LOT and probably won't even stick in the end.

Again, just because you don't like the paper's conclusion isn't a justification for accusing the authors of only being interested in fame. It's not dissimilar to all the JP3 Spinosaurus fans who accuse Nizar Ibrahim of "ruining" their favourite theropod. Naish certainly isn't stooping to such personal insults.

[stargatedalek]

They didn't even create a neotype. It really isn't a stretch that their intention was to rename first, justify later, whether ultimately justified or not. Why else would they completely disregard procedure?

[GojiraGuy1954]

They didn't even create a neotype. It really isn't a stretch that their intention was to rename first, justify later, whether ultimately justified or not. Why else would they completely disregard procedure?

My thoughts exactly

[Newt]

They didn't even create a neotype. It really isn't a stretch that their intention was to rename first, justify later, whether ultimately justified or not. Why else would they completely disregard procedure?

Designating a neotype when the holotype is extant but nondiagnostic is not normal procedure; it's meant to be used in exceptional cases. Whether this qualifies as an exceptional case can be debated, but the authors did not disregard procedure. What they did is quite normal, it's just that most such taxonomic bookkeeping doesn't impact such well-known names.


This situation is somewhat analogous to the Antrodemus/Allosaurus situation. Antrodemus valens was described based on a partial theropod tail vertebra possibly but not definitely from the Morrison. Later, much more complete skeletons of large theropods were found in the Morrison and referred to Antrodemus. Antrodemus was the most famous of the Late Jurassic predators, featuring in museum displays and popular books.


But in 1976, James Madsen determined that the holotype of Antrodemus valens was non-diagnostic. He could have declared one of the more complete skeletons a neotype and saved the famous name Antrodemus, but he didn't. Instead he restricted the name Antrodemus valens to the holotype vertebral scrap and resurrected what had been a junior synonym, Allosaurus fragilis, for the more complete and diagnostic skeletons. Perhaps some people then felt sad to lose the name Antrodemus for what is, objectively, a silly name (Allosaurus = "different lizard"), but nobody worries about it now, and Antrodemus is long forgotten.


The only difference in the current situation is that the researchers did not have a synonym available for the Harvard specimen, so they had to make up a name. And I agree that Eiectus is uninspiring, but so what? Being cool is not a criterion for validity.

[GojiraGuy1954]

They didn't even create a neotype. It really isn't a stretch that their intention was to rename first, justify later, whether ultimately justified or not. Why else would they completely disregard procedure?

Designating a neotype when the holotype is extant but nondiagnostic is not normal procedure; it's meant to be used in exceptional cases. Whether this qualifies as an exceptional case can be debated, but the authors did not disregard procedure. What they did is quite normal, it's just that most such taxonomic bookkeeping doesn't impact such well-known names.


This situation is somewhat analogous to the Antrodemus/Allosaurus situation. Antrodemus valens was described based on a partial theropod tail vertebra possibly but not definitely from the Morrison. Later, much more complete skeletons of large theropods were found in the Morrison and referred to Antrodemus. Antrodemus was the most famous of the Late Jurassic predators, featuring in museum displays and popular books.


But in 1976, James Madsen determined that the holotype of Antrodemus valens was non-diagnostic. He could have declared one of the more complete skeletons a neotype and saved the famous name Antrodemus, but he didn't. Instead he restricted the name Antrodemus valens to the holotype vertebral scrap and resurrected what had been a junior synonym, Allosaurus fragilis, for the more complete and diagnostic skeletons. Perhaps some people then felt sad to lose the name Antrodemus for what is, objectively, a silly name (Allosaurus = "different lizard"), but nobody worries about it now, and Antrodemus is long forgotten.


The only difference in the current situation is that the researchers did not have a synonym available for the Harvard specimen, so they had to make up a name. And I agree that Eiectus is uninspiring, but so what? Being cool is not a criterion for validity.

Its iconic status was part of what saved Tyrannosaurus

[DinoToyForum]

Kronosaurus is so famous it even has a museum named after it: https://www.kronosauruskorner.com.au/about-us 

[Newt]

We could always keep "kronosaur" as a vernacular name, like paleocetologists (if that's the right term) have kept the name "zeuglodon" for basilosaurid-grade whales.

[Sim]

We could always keep "kronosaur" as a vernacular name, like paleocetologists (if that's the right term) have kept the name "zeuglodon" for basilosaurid-grade whales.

Another example of that happening is with mastodon, where the genus name Mastodon is a junior synonym of Mammut, but people still use the name mastodon for those animals.  I would prefer kronosaurus to kronosaur though, when a prehistoric animal name gets the last few letters removed for an informal name it always bothers me as it just feels wrong.  What does Eiectus mean?  I'm not sure if I prefer it to Kronosaurus as a name.

[Faelrin]

@Sim Out of curiosity as well, having been unfamiliar with the word I searched it up. Here is a link:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/eiectus

Considering what it means now, I find this rather a distasteful and disrespectful choice to both the animal and those that originally worked on its remains. There may be legitimate reasons for having the specimen we are familiar with moved into a new genus, but surely they could have picked a more tactful choice of name, no? Again I can't read the paper so I don't know what the authors justification for this name was, but I still don't think I would be a fan of it either.

[Fembrogon]

"ēiectus - 1.expelled, ejected, rejected 2.stranded"

Ouch; that does come across as a bit snarky.

[Reuben03]

im not gonna stop calling kronosaurus kronosaurus and that's that lol

[GojiraGuy1954]

Oh god the evidence is building

[Shonisaurus]

I honestly like his old name better. The same with time the kronosaurus name will be recovered as it has been done with the brontosaurus, I have my hopes.

[Sim]

I came across a discussion on Wikipedia on this topic and there was an interesting insight, the authours of the paper didn't want to name the animal Eiectus.  Here's a link to the discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Palaeontology/Paleoart_review#Kronosaurus_or_not?
Relevant quotes are below:

Somebody needs to halt the preprint just to point out this pliosaur needs a better genus name. It's like renaming Tyrannosaurus to Manospondylus. Maybe I might send an email protesting the authors to change the genus name while its still possible. Macrophyseter

So the authors actually responded to me and they share the same sentiment. Apparently they wanted to name the new taxon Mbarasaurus after the Mbara people (which I personally think is an awesome name) but an anonymous reviewer blocked its usage and insisted that Eiectus be used instead. Also, there's been some uproar in the paleo community recently and its possible that people are going to push for the ICZN to resurrect Kronosaurus and erect a neotype. Macrophyseter

There was some good responses to this:

Wow, that sounds really bizarre, let's hope that name gets, err, ejected! FunkMonk

Hmm, that's interesting, I'm surprised that a reviewer would be that particular about a name. One thing that might be worth noting is that the Ghost Ranch Coelophysis got renamed Rioarribasaurus before the name Coelophysis was transferred to the Ghost Ranch specimens, so there's still some hope for Kronosaurus. Also, I don't have access to the paper, but doesn't Eiectus mean rejected? If so, it's been rather prophetic... --Slate Weasel

I hope a Kronosaurus neotype will happen, and it would be satisfying to see the rubbish name Eiectus get rejected decisively.

[Giganotosaurus]

Sorry I'm confused, so Kronosaurus is found to have been a different animal actually? Which one?

Also, considering the second The Meg novel had a Kronosaurus, I wonder if they will change it's name in the movie sequel (if it appears).

[suspsy]

Eiectus is indeed a lousy name and Mbarasaurus is a perfectly good one, so shame on whoever that anonymous reviewer is. And to be honest, I'd quite forgotten about this whole kerfuffle in the last few months. Kronosaurus remains in my mind and so it shall remain.