Re: Australian dino naming

[Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

Dann Pigdon wrote:

> (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.

I'd agree that the incomplete caudal named _Walgettosuchus_ was undeserving 
of a name.  Huene enjoyed giving names to indeterminate fossil vertebrae 
from around the world.  However, since it turns out that the _Rapator_ 
"metacarpal" (BMNH R3178) probably represents the claw-bearing phalanx of an 
alvarezsaurid, I wonder if _Rapator_ may actually be diagnostic at the genus 
level.

On the other hand, _Timimus_ and _Serendipaceratops_ have been treated as 
nomina dubia by some authors.  This harks back to the recent thread on the 
appropriateness of names, but without better material it is difficult to be 
too confident that _Timimus_ is actually an ornithomimosaur, or that 
_Serendipaceratops_ is a genuine ceratopsian.  There's not a lot to go on.

Cheers

Tim

_________________________________________________________________
The average US Credit Score is 675. The cost to see yours: $0 by Experian. 
http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=660600&bcd=EMAILFOOTERAVERAGE