Re: Bakker's Brontosaurus and Late Cretaceous populations

[David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

> Against the flow, heroic efforts have been made to reinstate 
> _Brontosaurus_;
> and I don't know what to make of _Eobrontosaurus_.

Hasn't someone just let it disappear in *Camarasaurus*...?

> At the other end of the spectrum, there are genera that look rather 
> 'lumpy', and perhaps (in some cases, definitely) deserve to split up into 
> more than one genus: _Plateosaurus_, _Alamosaurus_, _Iguanodon_, 
> _Probactrosaurus_, _Psittacosaurus_, _Euoplocephalus_, &c.  This has 
> already happened with _Chilantaisaurus_, _Dilophosaurus_ and 
> _Titanosaurus_.

Do you mean *"Dilophosaurus" sinensis* has been renamed??? ~:-|

> The process of breaking up European _Plateosaurus_ has already begun: one 
> study spun off _Gresslyosaurus_ as a valid genus, another resurrected 
> _Efraasia_, another erected _Ruehleia_, and more may be on the way.

*Efraasia* is not even a prosauropod, so that's not a case of 
splitting/lumping.

> (The process is not entirely one-way: _Sellosaurus_ was sunk into
> _Plateosaurus_, although as a separate species from the type.)

About as the same time as said type was reseparated into 2 species (*P. 
engelhardti* and the much more common *P. longiceps*).

> Work is being done to break up others
> among the aforementioned 'lumpy' genera, and some new names have already
> been coined - but these have yet to be published.

Would be really great to have a phylogeny of *Psittacosaurus*. Even the 
attempt to synonymise the species into four is so old (1993?) that 2 or 3 
species have been described since.