tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post3662974765895651529..comments2024-03-17T01:48:59.504-07:00Comments on The Theropod Database Blog: GSP's new taxon combinations from his dinosaur field guideMickey Mortimerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08831823442911513851noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post-24782189289865959732010-10-10T17:04:28.778-07:002010-10-10T17:04:28.778-07:00I agree, and indeed Mapusaurus was first announced...I agree, and indeed Mapusaurus was first announced as a species of Giganotosaurus.<br /><br />As for the tyrannosaurids, it all depends on your phylogeny. In Carr's various published phylogenies Appalachiosaurus is outside Tyrannosauridae and Bistahieversor is a basal tyrannosaurine. So in these topologies I think your lumping would be wrong, assuming you agree with the consensus that taxa should be monophyletic. My website takes Carr's published phylogenies (which are basically cranial-only) and adds his hindlimb characters from the Alectrosaurus analysis in his thesis. In that case, Appalachiosaurus and Bistahieversor are both albertosaurines. And then I'd say lumping to make Albertosaurinae into Albertosaurus is a subjective opinion.<br /><br />My question to you is- what benefit does your lumping accomplish? Since "genus" is completely subjective, your taxonomy is no more true than the consensus taxonomy. Even if you could prove that sealeyi and libratus were more similar to each other than two congeneric mammal species are, nobody cares. Similarity-based taxonomy is an archaic system that's dying out in dinosaur paleontology as its practitioners do. Just like non-cladistic phylogenetic analyses, it has no future in the field. All it does when you call Bistaheiversor Albertosaurus sealeyi is confuse people.Mickey Mortimerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08831823442911513851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post-91652112771986610792010-10-10T16:07:33.932-07:002010-10-10T16:07:33.932-07:00Giganotosaurus being sunk down to Carcharodontosau...Giganotosaurus being sunk down to Carcharodontosaurus? That's completely unnatural, a more likely way (a lumper's way, anyway) would to sink Mapusaurus into Giganotosaurus.<br />I'd also like to ask: If I lumped Bistahieversor into Albertosaurus (which I do, I'm kind of a Pauline lumper) would that effect Appalachiosaurus in any way?Mackenzie Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03053036058117935122noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post-34057496558344328882010-08-04T20:05:14.119-07:002010-08-04T20:05:14.119-07:00You have stated a bit of pretty well information a...You have stated a bit of pretty well information about Dino's here. Awesome.Dinosaur Wall Stickershttp://wallstickers-decals.com/store/category/kids-wall-decals_dinosaur-wall-stickers/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post-70108694032837609862010-08-03T23:58:58.912-07:002010-08-03T23:58:58.912-07:00It looks to me like this is Paul's work, as si...It looks to me like this is Paul's work, as similar statements (not the same subjects) occur in PDW and DotA. If it were editorial, I would hope a statement from Paul clarifies.Jaime A. Headdenhttp://qilong.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post-69050558753734272902010-08-03T18:24:37.499-07:002010-08-03T18:24:37.499-07:00Is this actually Paul's doing? I'm well aw...Is this actually Paul's doing? I'm well aware of Paul's fondness for informal taxonomic lumping and all for holding the GSP POPSCI Juggernaut accountable to scientific scrutiny. These...um revisions, however, just seem far too sloppy for even Paul. Its almost like some over zealous editor went through the book and attempted to make the book more accessible to the the lay public by synonymizing every thing with a more famous relative.Christopherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01159108424094927362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post-17642735552791106072010-08-03T14:56:48.847-07:002010-08-03T14:56:48.847-07:00True, but in the species' actual entry it'...True, but in the species' actual entry it's listed as "Giganotosaurus (or Carcharodontosaurus) carlinii". Paul does this quite a bit, with "Conchoraptor (or Citipati) gracilis" and "Velociraptor (or Tsaagan) mangas" as other examples.Mickey Mortimerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08831823442911513851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post-74667757835219087802010-08-03T06:43:51.806-07:002010-08-03T06:43:51.806-07:00I'm just skimming the pictures for now, but I ...I'm just skimming the pictures for now, but I see on page 49 he uses <i>Giganotosaurus carolinii</i>.Bradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15613329277334129312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post-41998095370578587422010-08-03T01:41:40.730-07:002010-08-03T01:41:40.730-07:00I completely agree with your conclusion.I completely agree with your conclusion.Andrea Cauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10855060597677361866noreply@blogger.com