You are here
I write in support of Upchurch et al.’s proposal to establish Cetiosaurus oxoniensis Phillips, 1871 as the type species of Cetiosaurus Owen, 1841 and to set aside all previous fixations of type species for this genus. Cetiosaurus was
the first sauropod dinosaur to be scientifically described (Owen, 1841)
and one of the earliest dinosaurs to be recognised: the taxon is
clearly of historical importance and stabilising its taxonomy would
represent an important contribution to dinosaur studies. The name has
I strongly support the proposal by Upchurch et al. (BZN 66(1): 51–55) for the conservation of usage by designating Cetiosaurus oxoniensis Phillips, 1871 as the type species of Cetiosaurus Owen, 1841. As extensively referenced in the proposal, the name Cetiosaurus has invariably been associated with the species C. oxoniensis,
and specifically the Bletchington Station material, for almost 125
years. In particular, it should be noted that the ‘Monograph of the
I am writing to strongly endorse the application to give precedence to Procynosuchus over Cyrbasiodon and Parathrinaxodon. As Kammerer and Abdala note, the name Procynosuchus is
widely used and a very important name to conserve because of its
significance in evolutionary studies and museum exhibits. The authors
have amply documented the preponderance of its usage and strong support
within the specialist community.
As the state paleontologist of Utah, I heartily support the proposal to make USNM4734 the neotype of Allosaurus. Allosaurus has been the Official State Fossil of Utahfor many years based primarily on the 54+ specimens of Allosaurus fragilis from ourCleveland/Lloyd Quarry (a national historic landmark) with many skeletons exhibitedacross the globe. No large theropod dinosaur is as well documented as Allosaurusand to risk losing this name would only serve to confuse and complicate our scienceamong the people of the world.
The taxon Stegosaurus armatus was established by O.C. Marsh in 1877 on a very fragmentary specimen from the Morrison Formation near Morrison, Colorado (erroneously stated to be ‘Morrison, Wyoming’ by Galton, BZN 68: 127). The specimen was encased in silicified sandstone and collected very poorly by modern standards using hammers and chisels, plus explosives to reduce the rock into more manageable pieces.
I wish to supplement my previous comment (BZN 68: 215–217) on Case 3536, with respect to putative individual variation reported by Maidment et al. (2008) for Stegosaurus armatus.