Re: Giant caenagnathid pix

[Dino Guy and Computer Gal <gbabcock@best.com>]

Nick Pharris  <NJPharris@aol.com> wrote:

> >  http://www.trieboldpaleontology.com/casts/oviraptor.htm
>
> Is this thing going to be described any time in the foreseeable future?

This specimen is still up for sale, so its ultimate fate is unknown.  It is
customary nowadays to put off publication (and indeed, even naming) of a
privately owned fossil specimen until it is acquired by a public
institution where it may be available indefinitely for further research.

There are exceptions -- _Bambiraptor_, for example -- but these present the
problem that paleontologists other than the original authors may be unable
to access the original fossil material to confirm or refute the original
papers' observations and conclusions, and besides, the specimens may in
time disappear into anonymous private hands, either by legal or illegal
means.

The _Tyrannosaurus_ fossil named "Sue" has been interpreted very
differently by Chris Brochu (working for the Field Museum) than by Pete
Larson (of the for profit fossil excavation firm, the Black Hills Institute
of Geological Research).  In fairness, some of Larson's claims were largely
conjectural, as "Sue" had not been fully prepped.  Perhaps future work on
"Sue" will turn up new information as other paleontologists examine the
specimen's remains.

Furthermore, journals may have rules forbidding the acceptance and
publication of papers which are based on privately held specimens.
_Archaeoraptor_, the apparently smuggled chimera from China (photographed
and mentioned in _National Geographic_ but rejected by a peer reviewed
journal) points to the pitfalls of a rush to publication without sufficient
review.  I do not mean to say that this big oviraptorosaur will prove to be
a hoax, but rather to point out that there are reasons why one must
sometimes wait a while to read about fascinating finds in a proper journal
(if they ever appear).

In fact, the mere discussion of undescribed specimens in public can create
problems.  Consider the fate of the name, "_Ultrasaurus_."  By the time it
was to be published (for a North American sauropod that later turned out to
be based on parts of _Brachiosaurus_ and _Supersaurus_), the name had been
taken by an Asian sauropod.  So (before the name was abandoned due to the
parts belonging to the previously named dinosaurs) the genus had to be
called "_Ultrasauros_" instead.

Correct me if I am wrong, anyone.

-- Ralph W. Miller III   ralph.miller@alumni.usc.edu

"Stay cool, boy, real cool!"