In defense of Marsh and Cope (was Roewer award for Bad Taxonomy)

["Ken Carpenter" <KCarpenter@dmns.org>]

As  someone very much interested in the early works of Marsh and Cope (among 
others), I feel a need to defend them. Too much emphasis has been placed on 
what they did "wrong" rather than what they did "right."

First, put yourself in their shoes. At the time, very little is known about 
dinosaurs (or any other prehistoric vertebrates). The only dinosaur skeletons 
on display in North America were Hadrosaurus foulkii and Dryptosaurus 
aquilunguis, both mounted in 1868 at the Academy of Natural Sciences in 
Philadelphia. In 1877 (when the dinosaur "rush" of the West began), the major 
museums with fossil dinosaur bones were the Academy of Natural Sciences in 
Philadelphia, Princeton University, Barnum's American Museum (not the AMNH), 
and the Peabody Museum at Yale University. There were a few other, mostly 
smaller museums as well. None of these museums had anything like a complete 
dinosaur skeleton. Even Hadrosaurus and Dryptosaurus are less than 40% 
complete. The first complete dinosaur skeletons to be found (Iguanodon 
bernissartensis) were still over a year away.

Second, someone send you some bones from Colorado unlike anything you have seen 
before.  On January 1, 1877, no one had a single bone of Tyrannosaurus, 
Triceratops, Stegosaurus,  Apatosaurus, Diplodocus, Camarasarus, Coelophysis, 
etc. And the published literature, mostly of isolated specimens from England, 
was of limited value for you. What do you do with this bone? It is obviously 
unique. Should it be named or not? That is STILL a dilemma faced by dinosaur 
paleontologists. How much of a bone or of a skeleton is needed before a name 
can be created for it? Is the single tooth Leidy named Troodon formosus enough? 
or must you have at least a partial skeleton, such as Hadrosaurus foulkii? When 
Leidy named H. foulkii, who could have guessed that little of the skeleton 
would proved to be unique? It wasn't until all those hadrosaur skeletons with 
skulls were collected in western Canada and the US did people realize that the 
biggest difference among hadrosaurs lay, not in their skel!
 et!
ons, but in their skulls. What do you do if NOTHING is know of variation? or 
ontogeny? Do you simply not name anything in hopes that ONE DAY a more complete 
specimen is found? If that is the case, then we would still be waiting for 
Hypsirhophus discurus named by Cope in 1878. 
So now, if we can see farther, it is because we are standing on the shoulders 
of giants: Marsh, Cope, Mantell, Brown, Owen, Hatcher, Gilmore, Huene, Hulke, 
etc. So give them a break. 
Ken


Kenneth Carpenter, Ph.D.
Curator of Lower Vertebrate Paleontology &
Chief Preparator
Dept. of Earth Sciences
Denver Museum of Natural History 
2001 Colorado Blvd.
Denver, CO 80205

Phone: (303)370-6392
Fax: (303)331-6492
email: KCarpenter@DMNS.org

For fun:
 http://dino.lm.com/artists/display.php?name=Kcarpenter


>>> Christopher Taylor <ck.taylor@auckland.ac.nz> 03/May/04 >>>
Hi there,

    Thank you to those who replied to me on Ornithocheirus. Inspired by
that, and by a couple of weeks of trying to transcribe and organise details
from a particularly grievious early-1900s arachnologist, I here ask for
nominations for the vertebrate palaeontology section of the Roewer Award for
Bad Taxonomy (named to commemorate said arachnologist).
    This award is to be given to the taxonomist whose work has most
contributed to the undying suffering of those who follow after. Mere
erection of nomina dubia should not be the sole factor, but blatant
disregard of the laws of nomenclature, biology or even physics.
    Note that to keep this thread as a 'look how far we've come' topic, and
not a mud-slinging contest, nominations should be limited to workers who are
deceased, retired or otherwise highly unlikely to be informed of this ;).

    At present, I'm inclining to a joint award to Messrs. Cope and Marsh,
whose setermination to outdo each other lead not only to a large number of
nomina dubia, but perfunctory, spurious (promotional notes are not
publications) or back-dated publications which make it almost impossible to
establish priorities.

    Cheers,

        Christopher Taylor