Re: Saltasauridae (was Re: new titanosaur paper)

[TWILLIAMS@canr1.cag.uconn.edu]

>>From Sereno (1998 N. Jb. Geol. Palaont. Abh. 210: 41-83):
>Saltasauridae = Opisthoceolicaudinae + Saltasaurinae.  
>p. 72: "Although not based on diversity, morphology or tradition, a
>saltasaurid NST stabilizes the higher taxonomy of derived titanosaurs, and
>supplants use of the taxon "Titanosauridae," which is not based on a valid
>genus".


I wonder if anyone has thought to petition the ICZN to have _T. indicus_ 
suppressed as the type species of _Titanosaurus_ and replaced by (say) _T. 
colberti_ - like what Charig and Chapman (1998) have proposed for having 
_Iguanodon anglicus_ declared a nomen dubium and making _I. bernissartensis_ 
the type species of _Iguanodon_.  I think it was also done with 
_Cetiosauriscus_.

_T. colberti_ as described by Jain and Bandyopadhyay (1997) is based upon a 
fairly decent, diagnostic skeleton.  _T. indicus_, on the other hand, is 
based on two scrappy tail vertebrae.  _Titanosaurus_ is a fairly well-known 
(popularly) and well-loved genus, and I think it should be saved.  (It would 
also give some stability to sauropod higher taxonomy.)  Other genera which 
were named from scrappy and often nondiagnostic type material have been 
salvaged in this sort of way, like _Allosaurus_ and _Coelophysis_.


Tim