Paulodon, new genus for "Iguanodon" galvensis (free pdf)

[Ben Creisler]

Ben Creisler

bcre...@gmail.com

A new paper:

Free pdf:

Paulodon gen. nov., with Paulodon galvensis as the type species
(In honor of iguanodont researcher Gregory S. Paul)

Franco Sancarlo, Davide Mandorlo &Tracy Lee Ford (2025)
Reassessment of Iguanodon galvensis classification
Mesozoic 2(4): 302-312
DOI: 10.11646/mesozoic.2.4.3
https://mapress.com/mz/article/view/mesozoic.2.4.3


In this study, we revise the taxonomic status of the styracosternan dinosaur Iguanodon galvensis. Initially assigned to the genus Iguanodon, subsequent analyses questioned this classification due to key morphological differences. In this study, we reassess the fossil material assigned to I. galvensis through detailed comparative analysis with a broader sample of iguanodontid taxa. Particular focus is given to the postcranial skeleton, as well as the dentary and skull. Our findings reveal several autapomorphic features, including fully separated manual digits, a hook-like pollex, a rugose lateral femoral ridge, and a proportionally large distal ischial expansion, none of which are consistent with the diagnostic traits of Iguanodon bernissartensis or related genera. These anatomical distinctions support the removal of early Barremian galvensis from late Barremian or early Aptian Iguanodon, and the erection of a new genus, Paulodon gen. nov., with Paulodon galvensis as the type species. This reclassification contributes to a more refined understanding of European iguanodontid diversity during the Early Cretaceous.

====

[Iain Reid]

No one thought to involve any of the numerous active researchers who have worked on Iguanodon galvensis?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dinosaur Mailing Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to DinosaurMailingG...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/DinosaurMailingGroup/CAMR9O1%2BNHuz%2BbWefpL3WbdiJwP4tv4gEoJ6Ge%2BF_PybtUuG-Gg%40mail.gmail.com.

[The Dinosaur Heretic]

I’m noticing a rather unfortunate trend…

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/DinosaurMailingGroup/CAFR_--ad_gNHx1S5AAEgoA4pkpN%2B0P-jyt%3Da9ZO_%2BqChLwCt6g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Franco Sancarlo]

Dear Iain, well we have not thought about that because all of this was already published material. But if I will ever do another paper on the argument I will write one of them. Thank you for the comment 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/DinosaurMailingGroup/CAFR_--ad_gNHx1S5AAEgoA4pkpN%2B0P-jyt%3Da9ZO_%2BqChLwCt6g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Tim Williams]

Did that suggestion not come up during peer review?

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/DinosaurMailingGroup/CADJSBGpczw6USFYrwTvcf8fSFVEzRaJn4%3D%3D%3DiHHFQxdkEsBACg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mickey Mortimer]

Don't worry, there are only so many dinosaur name suffixes to use. We just have to get through "Paulosaurus", "Paulovenator", "Paulraptor", "Paulostegus", "Paulotitan", "Pauloceratops", "Paulocephale", "Paulomimus", "Paulopteryx" and "Paulornis" and they'll run out of genera. ;)

Mickey Mortimer

[Franco Sancarlo]

To us nothing about that. The reviewer A suggested a phylogenetic analysis, some changes in the text and more immages B suggested a temporal separation paragraph and some changes in the text. We did all the reviewer request 

Doing the phylogenetic analysis was difficult at the time, since it was our first time! But we did it, we asked for a bit of help.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/DinosaurMailingGroup/CA%2BnnY_FPwhKezdTxNB%3DS%3DncPKDUkscmUVESiW37FL0Q5mkkL6w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Franco Sancarlo]

I have to say that your statement is wrong, if combine the name or change some letters we can go to an even higher number, like Paulovenatormimus or Paulisaurus ;)

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/DinosaurMailingGroup/7881b3ab-4cd7-4872-901c-62d9b8363394n%40googlegroups.com.

[Amber]

Hi Sancarlo - curious about a few things in the paper. There are some obvious errors that give me pause (referencing Figs. 4 and 5 in the femur section, instead of clearly intended 3 and 4; mislabelled of G as H in Fig 7 caption; use of "ug. galvensis" throughout the paper), but moreso I have a few methodology concerns. Three supposed traits separating I. galvensis from the type species are traits of the manus, cited to Verdú et al. 2015. But the manus isn't figured there, or described in any detail. The drawing in this paper appears to match the manus of the skeletal of that paper. Were these anatomical traits based on anything other than this skeletal drawing, which seems hardly appropriate as a substitute for an actual fossil? Other redraws are also concerning - for example, the pollex is figured in the 2015 study and appears noticeably less stout than depicted here and used to support the pollex as diagnostically shorter. 

Likewise, the I. bernissartensis femur in figure 3 is redrawn from another redrawing in the 2015 study, and referring to the original source (Norman (1980) - not cited herein despite clear relevance) reveals the fourth trochante to be mostly missing. Verdú et al. reproduced the femur with the dotted line of the missing element coloured in as if preserved, and that seems reproduced here with the arrow pointing to this unpreserved portion as a true character. I also decided to check Verdú and colleagues' 2017 paper, "Individual variation in the postcranial skeleton of the Early Cretaceous Iguanodon bernissartensis (Dinosauria: Ornithopoda)" (also uncited here) and the fourth trochanter is noted to vary between "triangular" and "trapezoidal" in I. bernissartensis, which would seem to account for the quite trapezoidal looking shape you show for I. galvensis.

As for the dentary characters, the dentary in I. galvensis' holotype is quite poor and the description of it as less robust is quite vague. Some discussion on why it is presumed so much of the dentary is unpreserved would have been appreciated, as it's hard to tell why the preseved portion couldn't fit in something more like an I. bernissartensis dentary. Did you come up with any sort of quantification for its proportions that weren't made clear in the paper? I'm also uncertain about that coronoid process - it isn't indicated or apparent to me in the Verdú et al. (2015) figure this is redrawn from or discussed in the paper, not to mention even as interpreted here it's hardly preserved. Do you feel confident you're seeing the base of a coronoid process at all? Likewise, do you feel certain that the perinate dentary preserves the predentary articulation finely as opposed to being broken or worn down at the front, as it's only figured in lateral view and the articulation does not appear to have been discussed by Verdú et al. (2015)? Also, what appears to be matrix in the original figure, behind the coronoid process, is figured as an arbitrarily separated section of dentary here. How much faith do you have in making comparisons with a perinate across all of these characters, regardless of the above concerns? Could these traits not be ontogenetic?

I hope there are good answers for all of these concerns; if not, this appears to be a study founded on; otherwise this would appear to be an unprofessional shotgun naming jumping off of other scientist's work to establish a genus based on misinterpretations and a large collection of questionably accurate second-order redrawings.

[Franco Sancarlo]

Thank you very much for the comment. Great one! I will answer in detail in some hours. I'm really sorry of forgetting to mention that beautifull work of Norman 1980 and Verdu et al 2017. But yes I have an answer for all the point or almost all. Thank you again for the comment 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/DinosaurMailingGroup/88986b77-0a05-40f4-bda5-8af3f9b9c483n%40googlegroups.com.

[Alessandro Chiarenza]

I generally refrain from commenting on this list, as the language and tone can sometimes be more akin to a barroom exchange than a scientific forum. However, I am commenting here because this concerns years of work by a PhD student that is about to be published.

It is deeply concerning to see (echoing what others have noted in several recent threads) what appears to be taxonomic vandalism being carried out on an almost daily basis by Gregory Paul, Franco Sancarlo, and others.

With specific regard to this paper, in addition to the excellent points already articulated clearly here (e.g., by Amber), there are many further issues that I will not detail publicly so as not to pre-empt our in-press work. That said, the lack of key details, meaningful comparisons, quantitative testing, and the reliance on speculative reconstructions and unsupported assertions are troubling. This kind of irresponsible practice undermines the careful work of those who are trying to do rigorous taxonomy and invites a flood of poorly argued, poorly edited, and poorly reviewed claims into the literature.

Even setting aside those methodological concerns, our own work took great care to show respect not only for the community of iguanodontian workers grounded in first-hand observations of the material, transparently documented, but also, and most importantly, for our Iberian colleagues, who—rightfully—should have priority in ultimately naming material from their region that we are systematically studying and that, when and if warranted, deserves a new epithet.

I will keep this brief, but I urge Franco Sancarlo, Gregory Paul, and others engaging in this approach to consider the damage this causes to the science and to the community, and to stop this practice immediately.

Best regards,
Alessandro Chiarenza

[Jerry Harris]

I concur with Alessandro's points. Also setting aside issues surrounding naming taxa without ever having seen the specimens, and surrounding "differing research protocols" that have already been discussed, the simple fact that the authors of "Paulodon" apparently did not even attempt to determine whether or not a graduate student or other worker(s) might be working on the pertinent material before "claim jumping" with their own name is...well, let's say "ethically dubious." Would an email or two to the original describers to ask "Hey, is anyone currently working on this material and planning to name it?" have been so difficult? Certainly it would have been common courtesy. (If I am in error about any attempt to contact anyone to inquire, I will happily stand corrected.) 

As others have pointed out, this situation is more than a little reminiscent of some other situations, such as the erection of Megapnosaurus, not to mention the herpetological "taxonomy" of Ray Hoser (for those unfamiliar, see here) that have been widely condemned in their respective research communities. Moreoever, such actions ("taxonomic vandalism," as it's been called) isn't exactly the sort of action that will endear anyone to the wider paleontological community, especially anyone looking to build a reputation, unless they're looking to build a pointedly negative reputation. 

Is there a place in paleontology for someone to tackle a potential new genus or species that has had mention in the literature (including in unpublished theses and dissertations) but not been named? Of course there is. For example, offhand I can think of at least a few taxa that have been named in theses and dissertations, or at least specimens mentioned as being distinctive, but not yet properly published. But I definitely think that two criteria come into play in such situations: (1) Has the material been languishing without study for a suitable amount of time? In other words, was it material initially described or mentioned decades ago, but no one has tackled it since? I don't think just a few years, or even a single decade, satisfies this criterion, especially when, as pointed out, the original describers are extant; and (2) Have the appropriate persons been contacted to see if anyone else is presently working on the material and/or already have plans to publish, perhaps even a manuscript already in preparation? As above, this could be the original describers if they are extant, but it could even be the curator of whatever institution houses the pertinent material, who would almost certainly know if someone's working on material in their care.

Note here I am not talking about whether or not such "taxonomic vandalism" is legal under ICZN rules; that's a completely different issue. I'm only addressing here the ethics and courtesy that should be extended in situations such as this. If, as Alessandro notes, the "Paulodon" material in question is presently being studied by a Ph.D. student and to be published imminently, in my opinion they should retract their preprint and not attempt to publish anything about the relevant material until after said student's work has been published. It would be the magnanimous thing to do.

[Thomas Richard Holtz]

Adding on to what Alessandro and Jerry have said:

Additionally, one should contact the museum containing the holotype material to verify if someone is already working on that specimen, and make sure that they clear it. This isn't a rule, but it IS professional courtesy. The collections team of that museum would be able to let folks know if there were others currently working on these specimens.

For example: Zanno & Napoli checked with the Burpee Museum when they were going to incorporate "Jane" into their ongoing research on Nanotyrannus. (I happened to be in Rockford the weekend that Zanno was there to collect the cranial material to bring back to Raleigh.)

As an aside: the Paulodon authors are probably correct and the taxon might well not belong in Iguanodon. That isn't the issue at hand.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/DinosaurMailingGroup/ba609c9d-ae9b-4a48-83f1-cacda5ed6273n%40googlegroups.com.

--

Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Email: tho...@umd.edu         Phone: 301-405-4084
Principal Lecturer, Vertebrate Paleontology

Office: CHEM 1225B, 8051 Regents Dr., College Park MD 20742

Dept. of Geology, University of Maryland
http://www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/

Phone: 301-405-6965
Fax: 301-314-9661              

Faculty Director, Science & Global Change Program, College Park Scholars

Office: Centreville 1216, 4243 Valley Dr., College Park MD 20742
http://www.geol.umd.edu/sgc
Fax: 301-314-9843

Mailing Address: 

                        Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
                        Department of Geology
                        Building 237, Room 1117

                        8000 Regents Drive
                        University of Maryland
                        College Park, MD 20742-4211 USA

[Franco Sancarlo]

Dear Harris, this is not a preprint, it's a paper that come out, it has peer review and a Zoobank id, if it was a preprint I would retract it now. I'm really sorry that this happened, for the next times I will ask before doing anything with the animals . I'm really sorry about what happened 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/DinosaurMailingGroup/ba609c9d-ae9b-4a48-83f1-cacda5ed6273n%40googlegroups.com.

[Gregory Paul]

I don't know about this. A while back I was working on a very major specimen. The institution asked I work with another paleo who was also working on the specimen. Which made sense, Our results would have made international headlines. Before we were finished we got trounced by another research team that as far as I know did not inform the museum what they were going to do. Which is fine. That's science. I was annoyed but not at all put out. We two should have gotten our work done sooner and beat the competition. Our oops. 

Another case I submitted a paper naming an important S. Amer specimen that badly needed it, and a reviewer said there were already people doing it. So I contacted them and we agreed to collaborate. They had already told the locals they would name the beast after their town. I pointed out that would ensure the media would pay not attention to the detriment of the locals in terms of visitors, I have a really name that might have gotten international press attention. Later I was not getting responses and they cut me out. I realized why when I saw the paper, they had done that controversial thing with Kronosaurus and assumed I might object. Not sure about that. In any case I was left out. Oh well. 

The Iberian iguanodont could and should have been named at the genus level a good while back. I brought the auto chucking of this and that and the other into Iguanodon to a halt in the 2000s, and it was a mistake doing so with this. Science is about competition and priority. 

And what is still going on with the Chinese sauropods. Why is hochuanensis still in Mamenchisaurus at all these decades, and tianfuensis still in Omeisaurus? There is no good excuse for this, someone could have done a quick paper ages ago with diagnoses and everyone would be using the new names including a happy me in my field guides. 

The paleo community is at fault for a lot of this. 

It would have been nice if Franco had asked. But it was not necessary, the fossils having been published and there generic separation being obvious. Lighten up on him. 

GSPaul

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/DinosaurMailingGroup/CAHQFgpp13UY%2BdyNaNf8wDGMQJ7xRyZopNyH_h%3D1rnXWe_nU4MA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Amber]

Hariss saying "preprint" might have caused some confusion, but paper's can be retracted Sancarlo. You could talk to people at the journal and get something arranged, I'm sure. I suggest you do the right thing - staying on the path of taxonomic vandalism like this will not make for a good future for you in the field. You haven't published much, it's hardly too late to turn around and make amends. 

[James Napoli]

Distressing to see two papers of this sort in one week. It's basic courtesy and professional ethics to check with relevant museum collections before publishing on their specimens, despite Greg's claims to the contrary; even when a specimen is published, this is a quite basic best-practice that should be followed. Emails take five minutes and cost no money; this is not a barrier and there is no excuse for not doing this, even when a specimen has already been described.  And especially so when there are early-career researchers who may have their work impacted by the publication of rushed publications that exist only to secure naming rights. The "excuse" for why taxonomic messes continue is that proper taxonomic work does involve quite a lot of hard work, including travel to see specimens firsthand, geological contextualization, and detailed analysis. 

[Stephen Poropat]

I can only join the united front of condemnation against this recent paper and preprint.   

Regarding Chinese sauropod taxonomy specifically: most of the published papers on the various species of Mamenchisaurus and Omeisaurus barely provide the requisite fodder for accurate character score appraisal, let alone species diagnoses. Many of the figures are hand drawn (with some so clearly idealised / poorly executed that they are next to useless), and photos, when included, are often - by modern standards - of insufficient quality for proper appraisal of anatomical features (particularly vertebral laminae and fossae, which are somewhat important). Yes, we might all 'know' that at least some of these species are currently masquerading within genera in which they have no right to be. But you can't fix this from the literature alone.

Moreover, the simple fact that no-one (to your knowledge) has published a paper or abstract stating that they are undertaking research on Mamenchisaurus / Omeisaurus taxonomy is not evidence that such work is not ongoing; some people keep their cards close to their chest and wait until they are satisfied they've done the requisite hard yards before pulling the taxonomic trigger. That being said, Drew Moore and others - including several Chinese collaborators - recently (2023!) redescribed Mamenchisaurus sinocanadorum; does this not indicate ongoing, active research interest in this problem, even if they retained sinocanadorum within Mamenchisaurus for the time being (despite recovering it next to Xinjiangtitan in their phylogenetic analyses)? Saliently, in their discussion they have an entire section dedicated to the non-monophyly of Mamenchisaurus, specifically emphasising that "A comprehensive re-evaluation of Mamenchisaurus constructus must be at the core of any effort to revise the systematics and taxonomy of Mamenchisaurus and Mamenchisauridae". Even the closest scrutiny of the original paper on M. constructus (Young, 1954) would not permit this; only first-hand observation of the holotype specimen would. So unless you're planning a trip to China, not sure you should touch Mamenchisaurus any time soon. The Omeisaurus situation is little different; Young (1939) does not give you enough to adequately rediagnose O. junghsiensis, and, to paraphrase Moore et al. (2023), "A comprehensive re-evaluation of Omeisaurus junghsiensis must be at the core of any effort to revise the systematics and taxonomy of Omeisaurus".  

Unravelling a taxonomic tangle _properly_ takes time; a rushed, likely premature, e-publication would only satisfy its author. Unless you can emulate (say) the quality of the Dicynodon disentanglement (Kammerer et al., 2011), or the papers revising the Tendaguru 'titanosauriforms' (Mannion et al. 2019) or Romanian titanosaurs (Díez Díaz et al. 2025), or countless similar detailed, careful taxonomic deconvolutions penned by plenty of past palaeos, why not direct your obvious talents elsewhere? Perhaps you could do a temnospondyl field guide? Or one on archosauromorphs? Or crocodylomorphs? Or Triassic synapsids ? Or Mesozoic mammals / lepidosaurs / lissamphibians? Or pretty much any tetrapod / vertebrate clade from any time bin? I for one would welcome that, for the skeletals alone.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/DinosaurMailingGroup/d288607f-ddd5-42d6-9cf9-15ec8baa452an%40googlegroups.com.

--

Dr Stephen F. Poropat

Deputy Director

Western Australian Organic and Isotope Geochemistry Centre

School of Earth and Planetary Sciences

Curtin University

Bentley, Western Australia

Australia 6102

https://stephenporopat.weebly.com/

[Tyler Greenfield]

To Amber's suggestion for retraction: there are no 'takebacks' in zoological nomenclature. The ICZN has declared that retractions do not remove availability from works and names therein (Declaration 46). Therefore, Paulodon will remain the oldest available generic name for 'I.' galvensis (when it is considered distinct from all other iguanodont genera, that is) even if Sancarlo et al. (2025) is retracted. The damage is already done and it highlights why such decisions should not be made lightly.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/DinosaurMailingGroup/42b5e757-480f-47ec-8e65-c373b9226058n%40googlegroups.com.