Iguanodon (was Re: Saltasauridae (was Re: new titanosaur paper)

[<TWILLIAMS@canr1.cag.uconn.edu>]

> 
> (Oh, for the record, I think that Charig & Chapman should have used
> _Iguanodon aetherfieldensis_ rather than _I. bernissartensis_ for the new
> type species: it would at least have still been a British type!).

I can see a few Poms ...er, I mean British folk being a little upset 
at that.  I can think of two reasons why Charig and Chapman may have 
chosen _bernissartensis_ over _atherfieldensis_ as the new type.  
Of the valid species of _Iguanodon_ (and excluding the poorly-
known _I. hoggi_), _I. bernissartensis_ was the next species to be 
named after _anglicus_.  Secondly, strictly speaking _I. 
atherfieldensis_ may have to be renamed if _Vectisaurus valdensis_ is 
considered a junior synonym (as David Norman and others believe).  
_V. valdensis_ was named in 1879, predating _I. atherfieldensis 
(1925). 

First the EU government, now _Iguanodon_.  At least Belgium makes 
good chocolate.


Tim