|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Described in 1836?
One of the books I have (The Marshall Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs & Prehistoric Animals) says Thecodontosaurus was found in 1843, so unless this book is downright wrong (which I doubt; it's a very good and reliable source) the creature couldn't have been described in 1836. EDIT: Whoops, forgot to sign. Jerkov 20:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Weird. Every source I can find attributed Thecodontosaurus to Riley and Stutchbury 1836, and the type species T. antiquus to Morris 1843. My guess is that R & S named the genus but did not describe it or designate a type, which Morris did some time later. Sort of like with Rinchenia, only imagine the species mongoliensis hadn't already been named for Oviraptor--you'd have Rinchenia 1997 and the type species R. mongoliensis 2004. I think.Dinoguy2 02:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- That might be it. Since you have multiple sources pointing to 1836 and I have only one supporting 1843 I think it's best to stick to 1836. Also, my book doesn't explicitely say the remains found in 1843 were the first ones ever found of the creature, although it does strongly imply that. Jerkov 12:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- The first specimens were found in 1834 and indeed the genus was named and described in 1836 without a specific name attached. Remember that in prevalent early 19th century thought the genus presented the real essence of an object, whereas the species was a mere accidental. Although Morris is usually credited with providing the epithet in his 1843 catalogue, that work itself refers to a publication from 1840: Riley, H., and S. Stutchbury, 1840, "A description of various fossil remains of three distinct saurian animals, recently discovered in the Magnesian Conglomerate near Bristol", Transactions of the Geological Society of London, Series 2 5: 349–357. Perhaps it would be fruitful to check that article whether the name T. antiquus already appears in it. Morris himself did neither describe nor designated any type specimen.--MWAK (talk) 14:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- The 1836 article says "Of the three animals described in the paper, two belong to a genus for which the author proposes the name of Palaeosaurus, and the third to one which they have called Thecodontosaurus". The article title ends "Magnesian Conglomerate on Durdham Down, near Bristol" - does anyone know whether that's located at Quarry Steps? If not, where is it? JohnHarris (talk) 18:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
"The Thecodontosaurus was a victim of World War II bombings by the Germans"
Which Thecodontosaurus? There is no explanation of when and where that specimen was found, where it was when bombed, etc. 22.214.171.124 22:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- That's awkward wording, but it was the type specimen and some other material from the same site, which may or may not have been one individual, all told. J. Spencer 00:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Interesting article on Theco's paleoecology: http://www.bris.ac.uk/news/2007/5762.html Full cite is
Whiteside, D.I. and Marshall, J.E.A. (2008). "The age, fauna and palaeoenvironment of the Late Triassic fissure deposits of Tytherington, South Gloucestershire, UK." Geological Magazine, 145, part 1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinoguy2 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
In a recent blogpost, (http://dracovenator.blogspot.com/2009/01/littlest-sauropodomorph.html), Adam Yates considers the dubious basal sauropodomorph Thecodontosaurus minor to be probably the smallest sauropodomorph and possibly a distinct taxon because Haughton's (1924) description of its type horizon places T. minor in the Lower Elliot Formation, which means that T. minor is not a synonym of Massospondylus carinatus (contra Cooper 1981).
Haughton, SH (1918) On a new dinosaur from the Stormberg beds of South Africa. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. 2: 468-469.