Should we abandon the name Titanosauridae? some comments on the taxonomy of titanosaurian sauropods (Dinosauria)
-
-
[1] Universidad Nacional del Comahue
Universidad Nacional del Comahue
Argentina
-
- Localización: Spanish journal of palaeontology, ISSN 2255-0550, Vol. 18, Nº. 1, 2003 (Ejemplar dedicado a: REVISTA ESPAÑOLA DE PALEONTOLOGÍA), págs. 15-21
- Idioma: inglés
- Enlaces
-
Resumen
Titanosaurs were the most abundant and widespread of Cretaceous sauropod dinosaurs. A derived subset of titanosaurian genera, historically termed the Titanosauridae, is beset with multiple taxonomic problems. Because the genus Titanosaurus is founded upon nondiagnostic material, the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature opposes the continued use of the term Titanosauridae. Nevertheless, the newly proposed Phylogenetic Code of Biological Nomenclature advocates the retention of Titanosauridae. To stabilize the taxonomy of derived titanosaurs, I consider Titanosauridae as a node-based taxon and Epachthosaurinae and Eutitanosauria as stern-based taxa, and thereby establish a node-stem triplet at Titanosauridae. I phylogenetically define additional titanosaurian clades including Titanosauroidea, Andesauroidea, Eutitanosauria, Saltasaurinae and Opisthocoelicaudinae. Finally, I return “Titanosaurus” araukanicus to the genus Laplatasaurus.
