Re: Australian dino naming

[Dann Pigdon <dannj@alphalink.com.au>]

chris writes: 

> While on the topic of dino naming, I have a question. 
>
> I recently purchased AMAZING FACTS ABOUT AUSTRALIAN DINOSAURS by S. 
> Hocknull and A. Cook and a number of species have generic names e.g. 
> Titanosaur, theropod dinosaur, pterosaur, Richmond pliosaur, freshwater 
> plesiosaur, ankylosaur, allosauroid etc. Is there a reason the naming 
> process hasn't proceeded further in these cases?

Three possible reasons: 

(1). Many fossils are too fragmentary and/or undiagnostic to be formally 
named. I think everyone would agree that putting names to the likes of 
*Rapator* and *Walgettosuchus* was a bad idea. As far as I know, freshwater 
plesiosaur remains are all isolated teeth from the Victorian sites. 

(2). It can take decades from initial discovery for a specimen to be 
prepared, described and published. The Richmond pliosaur and the more recent 
Queensland ?titanosauriforms (Elliot, Mary, and friends) will almost 
certainly be formally described in the future. Eric the pliosaur was found 
in 1987, but not formally described (as *Umoonasaurus*) until 2006. *Minmi* 
was found in 1964, but not described until 1980. Muttaburrasaurus: 1963 to 
1981. So there's typically a 15-20 year gap between discovery and formal 
description these days. Of course back in the 20s and 30s they would have 
been prepared and described within a year or two (*Austrosaurus* was 
described the year it was found). 

(3). Some of the more unpronouncable names may have been omitted from the 
book, if it was targetted at a wider non-professional audience. However I 
suspect that the first two points account for most of the non-formal names 
you mentioned. 

___________________________________________________________________ 

Dann Pigdon
GIS / Archaeologist         http://www.geocities.com/dannsdinosaurs
Melbourne, Australia        http://heretichides.soffiles.com
___________________________________________________________________