Talk:Therosaurus

Old restoration

If this is only a tooth taxon, what is this depiction based on? Dollodon? FunkMonk (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, the pose resembles your standard Dollodon mount. I'd probably just caption it "based on related species" or something without a definitive specimen source. MMartyniuk (talk) 13:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it an available name?

The problem with the article title is that it supposes that Therosaurus is an available replacement name in the first place. But is it? Therosaurus might be a junior synonym of Iguanodon but it might still not be available as a genus name for Iguanodon anglicus. To understand how this can be, we have to look at ICZN 12.2.3. which only requires the proposal of a new replacement name (nomen novum) for an available name, whether or not required by any provision of the Code. That's a very minimal demand of course. Simply proposing a name suffices. The point is that it is far from clear that Fitzinger proposes anything. In his 1840 article he happens to mention, among many other taxa, three genera which he further explains by giving their synonyms in parentheses. The first of these is Leptosaurus, named by himself in 1837, which he elucidates by giving the older species name (Lacerta neptunia). The next instance is Therosaurus (Iguanodon, Mantell). One could conceivably interpret this as saying "I propose the new generic name Therosaurus for Iguanodon Mantell". If so it would be a surprising and unexplained act, out of line with the rest of the article. However, there is third instance: he also mentions a Protochampsa (Mosasaurus). In this case his meaning is obvious: he poses, perhaps correctly, that Protochampsa Wagler 1830 is a junior synonym of Mosasaurus. So there is an alternative, and now rational, interpretation of "Therosaurus (Iguanodon, Mantell)": Fitzinger was aware of some previous publication by some writer, now lost to us, naming a Therosaurus which he deems identical to Iguanodon Mantell. This is confirmed by the fact that further-on in the text he uses the name Iguanodon as a matter of course. Under this interpretation, according to which the text makes some sense, the name Therosaurus is not available because, firstly, Fitzinger simply did not propose a nomen novum, and secondly, we can't know what the type of Therosaurus was when the name was first published. Sadly, the article does not cite any other publications.--MWAK (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this article doesn't even state when, how, or by who this name was resurrected for anglicus... FunkMonk (talk) 02:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Change from Therosaurus to Iguanosaurus

Iguanosaurus Ritgen, 1828 has priority over Therosaurus Fitzinger, 1840 as the replacement genus for Iguanodon anglicus and this article should be renamed accordingly. Reference: Ritgen, F.A. (1828). Versuch einer natürlichen Eintheilung der Amphibien. Verhandlungen der Kaiserlichen Leopoldinisch-Carolinischen Akademie der Naturforscher, 14, 247-284. Carnoferox (talk) 17:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence of this being used as a replacement in the literature? Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 20:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The combination Iguanosaurus anglicus has not been used in the scientific literature yet, but neither has Therosaurus anglicus. This taxon is most often treated as a nomen dubium nowadays. However, Iguanosaurus is still the oldest available genus name if this is to be maintained as a separate article.Carnoferox (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure Gregory S. Paul was the one who resurrected the use of Therosaurus a few years ago? FunkMonk (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I know of. I'm fairly sure none of his iguanodont taxonomy papers includes the combination Therosaurus anglicus, and this Wikipedia page is actually the first place where it has been used.Carnoferox (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone have this[1] paper? I'll ping Dinoguy2, who created the article from a redirect. FunkMonk (talk) 23:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is available through Google BooksIguanodon anglicushl=en&lr=&id=RhuwDQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA69&dq=g.s.+paul+iguanodont&ots=gRGmhcv6Ee&sig=F9T9zXF_ZZco0rN-WAoYTJdwC1g#v=onepage&q&f=false and has no mention of Therosaurus anglicus.Carnoferox (talk) 02:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask around, but if neither name has been used, why not name the page Iguanodon anglicus? Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 03:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why it wouldn't just be covered at Iguanodon then, as it was the original type species anyway (and this article shouldn't have been split to begin with). Likewise, a dubious former type species is covered at Diplodocus (and Stegosaurus, if it gets changed). FunkMonk (talk) 05:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iguanodon anglicus has a lot more historical importance than those two though. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 05:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's not really something that is generally taken into consideration. If we did so, a lot of historical dinosaur species would need separate articles (which we try to avoid if possible, so it's a bit of a slippery slope). What should really dictate splitting an article is size, and I. anglicus is pretty much already covered fully at Iguanodon (seems this article is basically just duplicate text taken from there), though we could of course add more text there if we want. FunkMonk (talk) 06:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If Iguanodon anglicus is not going to be placed in a separate genus then it should just be merged with Iguanodon. A lot of the text in this article is already covered in the "Discovery and history" section of the Iguanodon article.Carnoferox (talk) 16:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pretty strange case, I'll ping some editors who might be more familiar with the literature, to see if they have seen this combination in print... MWAK, J. Spencer, Jens Lallensack, IJReid. FunkMonk (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Therosaurus anglicus is mentioned here. But that's all a google scholar search will pick up (therosaurus itself only has 2 pages). IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 18:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since that abstract is from 2016, and this article is from 2013, I fear he might have relied on Wikipedia for the combination... FunkMonk (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that is the case since there is no literature citation.Carnoferox (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it doesn't matter if we're the origin of the use, merely whether or not it is in use. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 22:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not if the only use is an abstract. FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That single mention in the abstract might be regarded a simple typo if it is not clear that there was the intention to establish a new combination. I scanned my stuff for the names, nothing shows up here as well. The solution is simple imo: Just make it an redirect to Iguanodon. All of the text apart from the lead (which is not sourced anyways) appears to be an exact copy of the Iguanodon article (paragraphs in the "History and discovery" and "Species" sections of the latter article). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not Therosaurus anglicus is in use is a moot point because it is not the correct combination. The options are either to rename the article as Iguanosaurus or merge it with Iguanodon. The latter seems to be the best option since this article's text is mostly copied from the Iguanodon article.Carnoferox (talk) 22:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of discussion about Therosaurus from the dinosaur mailing list archives:[2][3][4] Nothing indicating the name should be used, though, as the teeth are not diagnostic. It really seems to just be a case similar to what we have with Diplodocus longus, and I think it is very fitting to keep discussion of the original Iguanodon type species in the Iguanodon article. FunkMonk (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article seems to be based on a misunderstanding. It states "the name Iguanodon was later officially transferred to a different animal", suggesting the name Iguanodon anglicus would have become invalid from a nomenclatural point of view. This is not at all true, however. The fact that Iguanodon bernissartensis has become the type of the genus does not automatically imply that a combinatio nova is created, combining the older specific name with some replacement generic name. Nor would such a name have preference. It is still perfectly justified to use the name Iguanodon anglicus. As I explained above, it is highly doubtful whether Therosaurus was meant to be a replacement name in the first place. Ritgen, in passing, twice mentions an Iguanosaurus. While it is likely this refers to Iguanodon, this is not made explicit. If so, it is still equivocal whether it was proposed as a replacement name. It might be a lapsus calami. In any case he does not refer, directly or indirectly (he does not mention Mantell), to any material, let alone the type material of I. anglicus. Unless some secondary source can be found treating the name Therosaurus in some length, the article can best become a redirect.--MWAK (talk) 08:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ritgen does mention Mantell specifically - "Vielleicht gehörte Mantels[sic] Iguanosurus hierhe"[5]. At the time (1828) only the Iguanodon anglicus syntype teeth had been discovered, so it undoubtedly refers to this material. Iguanosaurus was treated as an objective junior synonym of Iguanodon by Norman (1986)[6] before the replacement of the type species. Additionally, Kuhn (1958)[7] considered Iguanosaurus Kuhn, 1944 to be preoccupied by Iguanosaurus Ritgen, 1828 and replaced it with Iguanosauriscus. Iguanosaurus has been considered as an available name in the scientific literature, albeit as a synonym of Iguanodon anglicus. The want to place Iguanodon anglicus in a different genus stems from the fact that it comes from an entirely different locality/formation than the type species Iguanodon bernissartensis.Carnoferox (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't Iguanosaurus Ritgen, 1828 a nomen nudum? Regardless, yes, the Iguanodon anglicus material is almost certainly not referable to Iguanodon, but since it's dubious there's no need to use a different genus. As far as I know Hikanodon is the oldest validly coined alternative generic name for the material, but that is a mess in and of itself... Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 20:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, Iguanosaurus is not a nomen nudum. A description of the material is not required by the ICZN for pre-1931 genera as long as the work references a previous description (Article 12.2.1)[8]. Since Ritgen mentions Mantell specifically and the only material known at the time was the syntype teeth as described by Mantell (1825), it is certain that Iguanosaurus refers to Iguanodon anglicus.Carnoferox (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I missed the earlier mention. However, this paragraph makes it quite clear it was a lapsus calami. Ritgen apparently remembered the name Mantell gave as Iguanosaurus. By the way, Mantell had already started to buy "Iguanodon" bones in 1817 so there was much more material known than just the teeth. Ritgen's mention of the extreme length of the animal seems to prove he is referring to those bones also because he must have found this estimate in Buckland's publication of 1824, which extrapolates the length of Mantell's saurian from the size of Megalosaurus. Of course, this does not preclude him from referring to the teeth.--MWAK (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways, we all seem in agreement that the page should be merged, so I'll go and do it. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 23:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is clear that Ritgen's Iguanosaurus is a lapsus calami. Mantell originally intended to use the name Iguanosaurus and this name appeared in at least one informal publication before he named Iguanodon in 1825. I think that Ritgen was referring to this earlier name, and in doing so he validly published it. I wasn't aware of any postcranial material discovered before the Maidstone Iguanodon in 1834. I also thought the "60 foot" length mentioned by Ritgen was extrapolated by comparing the teeth to those of a modern iguana.Carnoferox (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Olshevsky explains things here [9]; a magazine apparently used in the name "Iguanosaurus" in 1824. This is where I got my confusion of Ritgen's use being a nomen nudum; Iguanosaurus Anonymous, 1824 is a nomen nudum, whereas Iguanosaurus Ritgen 1828 is a validly coined genus for the material later coined Iguanodon anglicus. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 23:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But if we assume that Ritgen's name is only based on the 1824 publication, wouldn't that suggest Ritgen was unaware of the name Iguanodon? This would imply that Iguanosaurus couldn't be a deliberate replacement name. And it would mean Iguanosaurus 1828 was just as much a nomen nudum as Iguanosaurus 1824 because it would still not refer to any description. That seems to be the interpretation by Olshevsky.--MWAK (talk) 13:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that since Ritgen was aware of Mantell and the fossils, he would have been aware of Mantell's description and naming of Iguanodon in 1825. It is possible that he considered Iguanosaurus to be the original and proper name, and in doing so published it as a valid replacement name. Even when Friedrich Holl named Iguanodon anglicum in 1829, he included Iguanosaurus as an alternate name.Carnoferox (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the article has been merged the Iguanodon taxobox will needed to be edited to reflect the changes.Carnoferox (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious species are usually excluded from taxoboxes, no? Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 00:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think Iguanodon anglicus and proposed replacement genera like Iguanosaurus, Hikanodon, and Therosaurus have enough historical significance to be included.Carnoferox (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stegosaurus and Diplodocus are the most similar examples, and they are inconsistent in regard to keeping the dubious type species in the taxobox (Diplodocus does, Stegosaurus doesn't). FunkMonk (talk) 07:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that Diplodocus is an exception because the dubious type species D. longus was officially maintained as the type by the ICZN in 2018. Again, considering the historical significance of Iguanodon anglicus and its synonyms I think they should be included in the taxobox.Carnoferox (talk) 16:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]