Talk:Aublysodon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Derivation[edit]

The derivation of this name needs sorting. Has anyone access to original papers, to resolve the issue? If not, my best shot is 'newly-erupting tooth' or 're-erupting tooth'. I don't understand the proposed derivation that is in the article at present. Please help - Ballista 03:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the general assumption has been that the name referred to the most notable trait of the teeth: the fact that the distal carina is turned to the back of the crown, giving it its distinctive D-shaped cross-section. The normal meaning of au, "again", does not support this, but au can also mean "on the contrary" and "backward". These are, from the point of view of Classical Greek itself, exceptional interpretations but were commonly applied in the nineteenth century. Leidy gave no explanation but did distinguish the two tooth types. My personal conjecture is that Leidy simply read au as "against" and referred to the fact that the two carinae "flowed" against each other around the tooth axis.--MWAK (talk) 07:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Status of Ornithomimus grandis Marsh, 1892[edit]

Ornihomimus grandis Marsh, 1892 is actually a species of Albertosaurus, thereby becoming Albertosaurus grandis (Marsh, 1892).

This is not the talk page for Ornithomimus or Albertosaurus.Firsfron of Ronchester 23:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
There has been a Aublysodon grandis. The "Albertosaurus grandis" combination indeed pops up on the net but to the best of my knowledge was never used in a scientific publication, or indeed any publication. It should also be emphasised that the Ornithomimus grandis Marsh 1890 (not 1892 !) specimen had no special connection with Albertosaurus sarcophagus, so there is no valid reason to make it a Albertosaurus species.--MWAK (talk) 07:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
This is one of those forgotten species that obviously is not placed in the correct genus by any valid source, but is also dubious enough that a new genus will probably not be created for it. Unfortunate--it would ease communication to assign new genera even to dubious species IMO. At the moment we can only talk about O. grandis or A. grandis along with the qualifier that it's obviously not O. or A.. MMartyniuk (talk) 13:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Such names can easily be provided. Just propose to your local newspaper to write a series of short articles renaming such taxa. Write them for free, geeky enough for added fun value and make sure they understand the publicity value. Remember that a failed diagnosis is a diagnosis also; the presence of true autapomorphies is not mandatory. In this particular case however, we have the problem the holotype has been lost, so we can only create an irrelevant nomen nudum. Personally, I prefer using the original name, i.c. Ornithomimus grandis, which would remain the type species anyway, even if we changed the genus. We can elegantly indicate it is not Ornithomimus by adding "non Ornithomimus".--MWAK (talk) 05:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
"we have the problem the holotype has been lost, so we can only create an irrelevant nomen nudum." Actually, my understanding is that as long as the species has been properly diagnosed in the past, just referencing that description along with the re-classification (in this case a new genus) would be enough to create a valid name (the ICZN does not recognize nomina dubia.) According to some, just self-publishing a note to Lulu Press etc. would be enough (see Kayentavenator, though its validity is controversial). MMartyniuk (talk) 13:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I stand corrected. You are right: the fact that its holotype was lost does not prevent a species from being used as the type species of a new genus. However, I would say that the validity of Kayentavenator is not controversial but unambiguously non-existent :o) — unless meanwhile a print run has been made.--MWAK (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


GAN?[edit]

Why aren't you guys submitting this to GAN? Nergaal (talk) 23:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

What would be gained by that?--MWAK (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
What's that? Good article nomination? FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes.--MWAK (talk) 05:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Aublysodon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ucucha (talk · contribs) 10:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article. As an initial comment, shouldn't the taxobox make clear that Aublysodon is a nomen dubium, instead of suggesting that Aublysodontinae is an accepted tyrannosaurid subfamily? Ucucha (talk) 10:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think most people who know have noticed this is up for GA, I'll notify the dinosaur project. FunkMonk (talk) 11:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Though Carr and Williamson (2004:481) say that they consider A. mirandus a nomen dubium because the type is lost, on my reading of the paper I didn't notice them saying them explicitly discussing the assignment of the type tooth to Daspletosaurus, which you cite them for. Ucucha (talk) 11:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • What is the citation for the identity of AMNH 3956 (A. lateralis)? Molnar and Carpenter (1989) do suggest it is Dromaeosaurus; where does the juvenile tyrannosaurine come from?
  • Carr and Williamson (2004) do not mention either Aublysodon amplus or A. cristatus. On the other hand, Molnar and Carpenter (1989) say they are the same as A. mirandus.
  • Several other identifications of the miscellaneous Aublysodon species lack references, but these interpretations certainly need to be sourced.
  • The partial skeleton from New Mexico referred to Aublysodon in 1990 is actually Bistahieversor, isn't it?

Ucucha (talk) 11:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It's been two and a half weeks since the above. I see a pair of edits to the article on June 21, and nothing since. What's the status of this review? Has there been any significant progress? BlueMoonset (talk) 12:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't look like it. I'll close this review; perhaps my comments will be useful to future editors. Ucucha (talk) 14:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
It was kind of a drive-by review it seems, no one was actually working continuously on the article at the time. FunkMonk (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, I expanded the article recently, but only now discovered this discussion! The review by Ucucha is very perceptive. The Carr & Williamson (2004) references, I more or less left intact as I found them, not having read the entire paper. If they do not reflect its content properly they should certainly be changed. The "juvenile tyrannosaurine" interpretation of AMNH 3956, I adopted from Mortimer's analysis given on his website here: http://home.comcast.net/~eoraptor/Tyrannosauroidea.html#Aublysodonmirandus Generally, I am hesitant to cite websites, even when of such high qualitative level as Mortimer's, but the apparent correctness of his judgement in this case seemed to make it necessary to at least mention the alternative. I was aware that some specimen referred to Aublysodon was later referred to Bistahieversor but failed to check it; again, a quick look at Mortimer's site shows me that this was indeed OMNH 10131, the exemplar in 2004 referred to Daspletosaurus. Of several species I gave no reference for their present identification because it would be too trivial — but in a GA such references should certainly be there. Of course, as I made clear above, I'm not really interested in GAN and FAN processes, though a contribution as intelligent as that of Ucucha would almost change my mind!--MWAK (talk) 08:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
So if you've addressed those concerns, it should fulfil the GA criteria now, or what? FunkMonk (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • name, teeth or genus? I think the article is about a genus. If you agree, please say that in the first sentence. Aublysodon is an extinct mammal/reptile ... genus known only from about x number of fossil teeth.
  • first things first. The first sentence is extremely valuable space. Use it to say the most important thing(s) in the most understandable way that is possible. The unability of the authors to say what the name is intended to mean is not the most important thing. (Leave this till later.) --Ettrig (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)