Dinosaur Genera List corrections #54

[Dinogeorge@aol.com]

The June _Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology_ arrived in the mail today, and
there are a number of articles of dinosaurological interest:

Weishampel, D. B., 1996. "Fossils, phylogeny, and discovery: a cladistic
study of the history of tree topologies and ghost lineage durations,"
_Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 16_(2): 191-197 [June 5, 1996].

Kellner, A. W. A., & Langston, W., Jr., 1996. "Cranial remains of
_Quetzalcoatlus_ (Pterosauria, Azhdarchidae) from Late Cretaceous sediments
of Big Bend National Park, Texas," _Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology
16_(2): 222-231 [June 5, 1996].

Lee Y.-N., 1996. "A new nodosaurid ankylosaur (Dinosauria: Ornithischia) from
the Paw Paw Formation (Late Albian) of Texas," _Journal of Vertebrate
Paleontology 16_(2): 232-245 [June 5, 1996].

>The above describes the new genus and species _Pawpawsaurus campbelli_,
which changes the attribution of the genus in the list from Jacobs, 1995
[nomen nudum] to:

Pawpawsaurus Lee, 1996

The holotype specimen is a gorgeous skull(!).

Forster, C. A., 1996. "New information on the skull of _Triceratops_,"
_Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 16_(2): 246-258 [June 5, 1996].

Forster, C. A., 1996. "Species resolution in _Triceratops_: cladistic and
morphometric approaches," _Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 16_(2): 259-270
[June 5, 1996].

>The above pair of papers substantially increase our understanding of the
composition and synapomorphies of the genus _Triceratops_. The systematics of
the genus as presented in the second paper is:

Triceratops horridus
  = Triceratops flabellatus
  = Triceratops serratus
  = Triceratops elatus
  = Triceratops calicornis
  = Triceratops obtusus
Triceratops prorsus
  = Triceratops brevicornis

All other species are _nomina dubia_, with the exception of _Triceratops
hatcheri_, which is retained as the type species of the separate genus
_Diceratops_. The idea that _Triceratops horridus_ and _Triceratops prorsus_
might be sexual dimorphs of a single species is considered and rejected, even
though the species are sympatric, because many more specimens referable to
_T. horridus_ than to _T. prorsus_ have been discovered.

Buscalioni, A. D., Ortega, F., Perez-Moreno, B. P. & Evans, S. E., 1996. "The
Upper Jurassic maniraptoran theropod _Lisboasaurus estesi_ (Guimarota,
Portugal) reinterpreted as a crocodylomorph," _Journal of Vertebrate
Paleontology 16_(2): 358-362 [June 5, 1996].

and two reviews of Edwin H. Colbert's book _The Little Dinosaurs of Ghost
Ranch_, by Robert M. Sullivan and Kevin Padian: _Journal of Vertebrate
Paleontology 16_(2): 363-367 [June 5, 1996].

>Of the two reviews, Sullivan's is by far the harsher, spurred on in part by
the _Rioarribasaurus_/_Coelophysis_ controversy. He trounces Colbert for not
keeping up with research on Ghost Ranch area stratigraphy.

Another item of unusual interest arrived here today, courtesy of dino-pals
Masahiro Tanimoto and Tracy Ford. Unfortunately, it's almost entirely in
Japanese, which is presently beyond my linguistic capabilities. I can't even
tell whether the book is authored or anonymous(!). The title, fortunately, is
given in English: _Dinosaurs from the Silk Road, China_, and the copyright
date is 1996. It is a guidebook to an exhibition of that title featuring
results of joint Chinese-Japanese (and Mongolian-Japanese?) paleontological
expeditions to the Gobi region. No less than four new species, and two new
genera, are previewed in the book. All should be considered _nomina nuda_,
since, although illustrated, they're not formally described. All seem to be
from Lower Cretaceous deposits:

(1) _Probactrosaurus mazongshanensis_. This seems to be a rather bulky
iguanodontid illustrated with a skeleton mounted in quadrupedal pose. Parts
of the vertebrae look real, but the skull and postcranial skeleton look cast
to me.

(2) _Archaeoceratops oshimai_. This is a spectacular specimen, known from a
relatively small skeleton about 50% complete (including skull + pelvic region
+ caudal series + hind foot), of a very primitive protoceratopid, apparently
bipedal. Premaxillary teeth are present. The frill is relatively short, but
the skull is quite large compared to body size. It seems closest to
_Microceratops_ in overall appearance.

(3) _Psittacosaurus mazongshanensis_. This is a smallish psittacosaur based
on a partial skeleton with skull. The species epithet suggests it is from the
same locality as the _Probactrosaurus_ species above. This makes three new
species of _Psittacosaurus_ to arrive here within the past few days. For
completeness, the other two are in the latest _Canadian Journal of Earth
Sciences_: _Psittacosaurus neimongoliensis_ and _Psittacosaurus ordosensis_,
both Russell & Zhao, 1996. Has anyone considered the possibility that some of
the numerous species of _Psittacosaurus_ may belong to a different genus??

(4) _Hudiesaurus sinojapanerum_. This is a fairly large sauropod, apparently
a camarasaurid because figures of _Camarasaurus_ are used to show which parts
were unearthed, although the vertebrae don't particularly resemble
_Camarasaurus_ vertebrae. The remains also include a forelimb. The humerus is
about 2/3 the size of Dong Zhiming, who is shown alongside the specimen.
There is a nice forefoot with at least four complete digits, the first of
which has a prominent claw. The species epithet should probably be respelled
_sinojapanorum_ (the book has numerous typos among the scientific names).

To summarize the DGL changes, add or change the following:

Archaeoceratops [Anonymous] 1996 [nomen nudum]
Hudiesaurus [Anonymous] 1996 [nomen nudum]
Pawpawsaurus Lee, 1996

Genera count soars to 791.