tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-140938929136406282.post3871670159753647140..comments2023-11-18T15:42:20.251-05:00Comments on DinoGoss: Playing with Saurian's GenericometerMatt Martyniukhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04220900229537564466noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-140938929136406282.post-88366291667268751632018-08-12T00:15:07.520-04:002018-08-12T00:15:07.520-04:00Is Anatosaurus valid and separate to Edmontosaurus...Is Anatosaurus valid and separate to Edmontosaurus? celsiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15165915101306068671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-140938929136406282.post-75821509306935417212016-10-29T08:47:34.109-04:002016-10-29T08:47:34.109-04:00This is something Tracy Ford has been mentioning f...This is something Tracy Ford has been mentioning for many years. I first heard it from him on DinoForum and I believe he has published skeletals depicting this kind of tail in Prehistoric Times. The reason this is not widely depicted is that as far as I know, outside Ford's PT articles, the supposed fossil or fossils supporting it remain unpublished. I gave both species this kind of tail because if it's real, it means most of our distal hadrosaur tails are incomplete and it seems unlikely the feature would be restricted to only one species. As for if its real at all, it's suspicious to me that it is still unpublished after all these years. You might want to message Ford himself on FB for more info that he might not want to disclose publicly until something is published.Matt Martyniukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04220900229537564466noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-140938929136406282.post-83544062811289783662016-10-26T09:05:11.056-04:002016-10-26T09:05:11.056-04:00Hello Martyniuk. Ok, this is off-topic, but since ...Hello Martyniuk. Ok, this is off-topic, but since you left deviantart, I have to ask this somewhere. It's about Edmontosaurus' tail.<br /><br />You mentioned some undescribed cf. E. annectens specimens with a long tail (as depicted in Saurian's edmontosaur). Is there any more information on them?<br /><br />And does it apply to E. regalis as well? I noticed that you basically gave E. regalis and E. annectens the same long tail in your Wikipedia size chart here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Largestornithopods_scale.png<br /><br />A quick search for Edmontosaurus seems to give shorter-tailed skeletons for both species. I'm wondering if this is simply a product of an earlier ontogenic stage or not. Do we have the tails of the larger/adult E. regalis specimens?<br /><br />Thanks in advance.SpinoInWonderlandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03248063636554132598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-140938929136406282.post-59815190061307908122016-07-19T10:51:23.354-04:002016-07-19T10:51:23.354-04:00I don't think using time for any indication of...I don't think using time for any indication of anything is a good idea. I mean the genus Canis has been around for nine million years, not just one. Plus there is always the possibility that an animal that is undiscovered could fill in the gap, and as a few people above have pointed out, we usually don't have very precise dates. Perhaps I have misunderstood, but I don't think using time to imply different genera is a good idea.<br /><br />(Ignore my post above, wish there was an edit button on these comments!)Monolophosaurushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15294576986914486909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-140938929136406282.post-75394247280206885662016-07-18T23:45:04.651-04:002016-07-18T23:45:04.651-04:00Yeah, the entomologists can laugh all they want, b...Yeah, the entomologists can laugh all they want, but nobody likes them anyway, stealing all our good dinosaur names. (I mean, come on, they HAD to know somebody was going to want to use "Microceratops" eventually! LOL, I kid. Mostly.)Andrew Raymond Stückhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12080621275951453768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-140938929136406282.post-63641196537017438052016-07-18T19:12:09.831-04:002016-07-18T19:12:09.831-04:00I'm not a fan of the genericometer, because it...I'm not a fan of the genericometer, because it only works if we know how old species in a given clade are within increments of a million years or so. This is fortunately true of Hell Creek, which is one of the most heavily sampled fossil strata in the world, but not of other fossil-bearing formations. In those cases, we can only guess exactly how old the species in question is, and whether it might belong to the same genus as one from a more well-sampled formation.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09811228108531247383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-140938929136406282.post-82191304657567127362016-07-18T18:27:37.454-04:002016-07-18T18:27:37.454-04:00Thank you for the interesting and in-depth look at...Thank you for the interesting and in-depth look at our "genericometer"! Of course I am bias by the methodology, but boy do I wish the ceratopsids looked like you describe in here. I for one am not afraid to say it: they're way over split!<br /><br />One thing to note: our system currently does account for paraphyly (ie. we don't allow for it) but your alternate suggestions here have certainly have given food for thought!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10558252320249112573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-140938929136406282.post-27992975189410638032016-07-18T18:18:25.256-04:002016-07-18T18:18:25.256-04:00One huge issue for that genericometer is that pinn...One huge issue for that genericometer is that pinning down any taxon's age within a million years is impossible in the vast majority of cases. It's only very recently that we've had this resolution for some Campanian-Maastrichtian western North American dinosaurs. But try it in Mongolia, where the most recent estimate for the Djadochta Formation's age I know of (Dashzeveg et al., 2005) is "about 75 to 71 Ma." Or the Jehol fauna, where we have a couple dates for each formation (e.g. 129.7 +/- 0.5 Ma and 125.2 +/- 0.9 Ma in the Yixian) and no exact locality information for most named specimens. Then of course you have the issue that interspecies phylogenies usually lack a strong consensus (one only exists for hadrosaurs now because basically everyone uses Prieto-Marquez' matrix), and it's even more of an impossible metric to follow.Mickey Mortimerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08831823442911513851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-140938929136406282.post-77888394390057538002016-07-18T12:15:55.821-04:002016-07-18T12:15:55.821-04:00Well while nomenclature can be systematic it's...Well while nomenclature can be systematic it's still an artifical division, it would be intersting to see if there's any attempts to standarize the deffintion of genera in the future at least within certain taxons. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14164538558433319744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-140938929136406282.post-3492178133577127442016-07-18T11:25:19.929-04:002016-07-18T11:25:19.929-04:00Nobody forces you to not call all members of Centr...Nobody forces you to not call all members of Centrosaurinae as Centrosaurus species. What matters is that everyobody understands what you are referring to.Andrea Cauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10855060597677361866noreply@blogger.com