We certainly recognise the problem suggested by Lucas (BZN 67: 181) in regard tothe name differences between the South American gomphotheres. However, beforedealing with the question as to whether or not a neotype for Mastodon waringi shouldbe proposed, we consider that a decision in regard to the validity or otherwise of thegenus name Haplomastodon should be made.
After a review of the opinion raised by Lucas (BZN 67: 158) and the comments byMorgan (BZN 67: 256), we strongly support the proposal for the conservation of thename Rhynchotherium, since the morphological characters are distinctive in the NewWorld gomphotheres of the Pliocene epoch, e.g. a relatively short mandible, broadand with a symphysis obliquely depressed downwards and two lower tusks laterallycompressed or deeply oval, often bearing external enamel bands.The assignation of a holotype was confused from the original designation byFalconer (1868), since he used the cast of R.
The taxonomy of the species referred to Allosaurus has been a contentious issue, assummarised by Paul (1988, 2010) and Chure (2000). Bakker (2000) and Paul (2010)claimed that Allosaurus fragilis (based on USNM 4734) is distinct from otherspecimens (DINO 2560, AMNH 666, etc.) by the proportions of its skull. However,Chure (2000) demonstrated that the supposed shortness of the skull of USNM 4734was based on an erroneous reconstruction of the skull by Gilmore (1920).
We studied carefully the detailed argumentation of Tsai & Rédei (2010; Zootaxa,
2572: 25–47) concerning Lamprocoris obtusus (Westwood, 1837), a senior objective
synonym of Lamprocoris lateralis (Guérin-Méneville, 1838). There is no doubt about
the following facts emphasised by Rédei & Tsai (BZN 67: 213–217):
i) The senior name L. obtusus was greatly overlooked by subsequent authors and
has never been positively treated as different from L. lateralis;
ii) There is extensive and substantial literature on this biological species under the
junior name L. lateralis;