Re: Cionodon kysylkumensis vs Bactrosaurus kysylkumensis

["Timothy Williams" <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

Fred Bervoets wrote:

> Do all finds named Cionodon kysylkumensis by Riabinin in 1939 thus the 
> Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan fall under B. kysylkumensis or are the Kazakhstan 
> fossils stil fal under Cionodon and is the name of the fossilsite I have 
> from Uzbekistan actualy the same as named by Nessov? Or are the described 
> fossil(s) by Nessov also described by Riabinin in the same paper?

_Cionodon_ is a genus founded upon a fragmentary maxilla from Colorado (type 
species _C. arctataus Cope, 1874).  The material is indeterminate 
(Hadrosauridae indet.) and the genus is best regarded as a _nomen dubium_.

_Bactrosaurus_ is an Asian genus and _Cionodon_ is a North American genus, 
so becuase _Cionodon kysylkumensis _ Riabinin, 1931 is based on material 
found in Asia (Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan), some researchers have preferred 
to refer this species to _Bactrosaurus_ rather than _Cionodon_.  But it's 
just rearranging deckchairs on a submarine - unless there has been research 
published to the contrary, the name _C. kysylkumensis_ is best sunk as a 
_nomen dubium_, thereby removing the need to refer this species to any other 
genus.


Tim
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com