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