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.

[mkir...@gmail.com]

It would be important to know if more of these types of (taxonomic vandalism) papers are in the pipeline from the authors.  

[Milo Gaillard]

To be fair, that’s assuming that Paulodon is considered to be generically distinct from Iguanodon. I know that Iguanodon used to be a massive wastebasket genus, but still.

-Milo

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 18, 2025, at 15:31, Tyler Greenfield <tgreenf...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/DinosaurMailingGroup/CAL1L4FJn7Zyqz9eqF0oNX4QPX%3D%2B7_v3q_OX8ctn6RBA2k-TFOw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Tim Williams]

When it comes to unethical names that have been published, it is true that there are no retractions or 'takebacks'.  But boycotts are a viable option, and there is a precedent for this approach.

A genus name may have priority by virtue of being the oldest available genus name according to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (the "Code").  But it doesn't automatically follow that researchers are compelled to use this name, if the name is deemed to be unethical.  This was made clear by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (the "Commission") in Opinion 2468, in response to Case 3601.

This Case/Opinion is centered upon a particularly vexatious and egregious individual mentioned earlier in this thread (rhymes with 'poser').  The Commission declined to suppress a genus name that was clearly the product of taxonomic vandalism, stating that "The Commission is not empowered to take Appendix A of the Code (Code of Ethics) into account in its rulings on this or any other Case."  However, via the same Opinion, the Commission also decided against a formal confirmation of availability.  

In the wake of this decision, the Nomenclatural Note of Krell (2021 dx.doi.org/10.21805/bzn.v78.a021) makes clear that the best approach is for researchers to disregard unethical names.  In his words: "works with controversial taxonomy and available nomenclatural acts are better taken care of by the scientific community and resolved in the long term by prevailing usage rather than trying to declare them unavailable or seeking suppression of such works by the ICZN."  Thus, if a name is technically compliant with the Code, but is regarded as unethical (such as the product of taxonomic vandalism), then the name should be ignored by the scientific community.  Ultimately, it will fall out of usage.

In short, when it comes to unethical names, the Commission's hands are tied - its decisions are bound by the letter of the Code regarding priority and valid publication.  But the scientific community has a free hand to make a collective judgement, and boycott unethical names.  The Commission has endorsed this approach.

I don't intend to single out _Paulodon_ in this regard.  I also have _Ajancingenia_ in mind, and perhaps _Megapnosaurus_ (which might be obviated by the outcome of Case 3894, to reinstate _Syntarsus_ Raath, 1969).  But relying on the Commission to rein in taxonomic vandalism is a non-starter (see above).  It's up to the scientific community to deal with unethical names, by simply ignoring these names.

[Skye McDavid]

Hi all,

I highly recommend reading the Krell 2021 paper that Tim shared.

Unfortunately, Paulodon is an available name and will remain so even if the paper is retracted. However, the tyrannosaur preprint is a preliminary work so it is not considered published by the ICZN. The damage caused by the taxonomic vandalism therein can be minimized by withdrawing it from consideration for publication wherever it has been submitted.

I have some concerns about the phylogenetic analysis in the Iguanodon galvensis paper as well, but I might be beating a dead iguanodont by further pointing out the technical shortfall of that work...

Skye

Skye McDavid
(she/her)

https://www.skyemcdavid.com/
This message was sent from a mobile device at a time that is convenient for me. I do not expect you to reply outside of your normal working hours

--

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/CA%2BnnY_FN01O-xUrd4H4VSUhJvjR6HZioAtXehpAN%3Dsau%2B8xNHQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Tim Williams]

Skye McDavid <ma...@skyemcdavid.com> wrote:

> Unfortunately, Paulodon is an available name and will remain so even if the paper is retracted.

Yes, _Paulodon_ will always be an available name.  But you don't have to grin and bear it.  If another work (such as by researchers who have studied the material first-hand) publishes a new genus name for _I. galvensis_, and the paleontological community elects to use that newer genus name in preference to _Paulodon_, then the newer name will ultimately become the valid name - irrespective of the principle of priority.  But this approach does require a concerted and unified effort by the community.  

This 'boycott' approach is neither snubbing or defying the Code - it is recognizing the limits of the Code, as acknowledged by the Commission itself.  The Commission is not empowered to cite ethical considerations in its decisions.  When it comes to ethics, the Commission has handed this responsibility over to the community.

[Gregory Paul]

Really, retract the paper? 

On what actual basis? 

Because it published on a taxon first named 10 years ago, on fossils covered in two papers since? That exclusivity ship sailed a good while back. 

Because it does not have photos which now seems to be an obsession with many? Then let's do that with all papers without photos. 

Deliberately faked data? 

Bad analysis? Well how about Sander et al. in Science in which they overestimated the mass of basal marine reptiles by a factor of four or more, not having bothered to do the necessary profile-skeletals? And the Perucetus paper that got the mass too high by a factor of three to ten, in part because they did not bother to measure the volume of their own skeletal. 

Wrong conclusion? Who actually thinks galvensis is in Iguanodon, which lived 5-7 million years later among other items? Who is going to put it back in?  What is the huge problem? 

here. 

Those who disagree with the details of the diagnosis are free and encouraged to do so in their future papers. If I do more work on iguanodonts I might have some issues. That's normal in science. 

A boycott? How is that going to work? That can only apply by people simply refusing to remove galvensis from Iguanodon, which is old fashioned wastebasket practice. That is sheer nonsense. 

There are legit criticisms of Sancarlo et al. And Tschopp et al. (a good many think their massive work with lots of photos did not actually revive Bronotosaurus -- actually it did not put enough specimens in Brontosaurus). And some folks think the paper naming A. jimmadseni with lots of photos did not do that. And so on and so on. 

A lot of this is absurd, sloppy, nonscientific, suppression of academic freedom hysterical bunk. All over a minor paper that finally got the Iberian material out of Iguanodon where it never should have been. Get a grip people. 

GSPaul

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/DinosaurMailingGroup/CABrjrNEyf9NhMY2hygB%3DeVn6M1fPbO6OtLFNqTHdJ%3DucBYTksw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Gregory Paul]

While we are at it, let's boycott Megapnosaurus. 

I doubt a journal editor would send a paper that so brazenly violates ICZN rules as never done before out for review. I can imagine it, a paper with an abstract that basically says lots of folks don't like the contents of Sancarlo et al., so we have come up with a new name for the same genus? Can anyone cite precedence? 

What is happening here?  

GSPaul

--

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/CA%2BnnY_H1sKEN47o32eV4n4wMr7QuYAwOmhJy1nnV3GwiYE7Frg%40mail.gmail.com

.

[Gregory Paul]

This is a classic example of a nasty, snarky panic. In the future Paulodon will be used as a matter of course, Sancarlo et al. cited without comment, or with proper dispassionate criticism. 

GSPaul 

[Iain Reid]

Multiple cases of precedence exist among dinosaurs alone (I have not trawled through non-dinosaur literature nearly as much). Megapnosaurus itself has gone to ICZN petition (Griffin et al. 2024) to have Syntarsus enshrined for the theropod over the beetle. "Kulindapteryx" and "Daurosaurus" have been ignored in favour of Kulindadromeus. Galvesaurus is now appropriately used over "Galveosaurus" regardless of whether you agree with the publication timing argument or the ethical one (or both). "Javelinadactylus" was retracted/withdrawn in favour of Wellnhopterus. There is the precedent mentioned above by Tim from an ICZN commissioner (http://dx.doi.org/10.21805/bzn.v78.a021), as well as the paper by Wüster on confronting taxonomic vandalism (https://academic.oup.com/biolinnean/article/133/3/645/6240088) that both argue taxonomists have the ability to bend The Code and set their own priority that can become the acceptable name once entrenched.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/DinosaurMailingGroup/410200848.1322458.1766114592401%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Maxwell Miles Candlen]

Also not unusual with family-level names when some decide that the eponymous genera aren’t “good enough” to hold a family together, and so choose to ignore a name with precedence for a name based on a more well-known member of the group. Paul did this himself in PDW, when he more-or-less single-handedly popularized the usage of Coelophysidae over Podokesauridae, which had sustained over 70 years of continued usage up to that point. This was then picked up by others in the 90s and continued on from there, despite the fact that Podokesaurus clearly shows at least half a dozen diagnostic traits of that group. Madsen and Welles tried to reverse this course in their Ceratosaurus monograph to no avail, and Paul himself seems to have reverted in his newest field guide (although I haven’t read it, I checked on Google Books while writing this.) One could name dozens of other similar cases, but that’s much too vulgar a display of power.

Nomenclatural inertia is a very real and very strong thing, and the living, working community of researchers wield much more sway than any rules ever could.

Maxwell Miles Candlen

New York State Museum

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/DinosaurMailingGroup/CAFR_--aCFvqwSdvTqLa9BKNs6ZOMRJcsNK-ukFEa_yMjhRc5MA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Gregory Paul]

How can Syntarsus be reapplied to a dinosaur over a beetle? What is the justification? Will be interesting if the beetle people have a say in that. In any case that is not an ethical issue, people just don't like Megapnosaurus including me.  

As I recall the Javelinadactylus fossil had not been described previously, and it was well known it was under processing. I. galvensis has been published extensively three times since 2015. It is not like someone had given a genus name to the taxon, and then Sancarlo et al. gave it another one. 

Kulindapteryx and Daurosaurus were based on stolen specimens. The galvensis specimens are published in the literature and of course available for scientific analysis, and a new generic title since they had no business being in Iguanodon. That was the doing of the Verdu et al., why are they not being charged with inappropriate taxonomy for using Iguanodon as a wastebasket taxon when that practice was rejected in the 2000s? 

Nothing will be done, because nothing can or should be done. The only alternative to Paulodon is keeping it in Iguanodon, and that will not happen. Again, this all could have been avoided had the specimens been given a new binomial name in one of the two, that's two, papers that described the adults. Since they did not they are open to peer-reviewed genus naming.

GSPaul

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/DinosaurMailingGroup/CAFR_--aCFvqwSdvTqLa9BKNs6ZOMRJcsNK-ukFEa_yMjhRc5MA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ethan Schoales]

“Not an ethical issue”? People thought the renaming of Syntarsus without the original author’s knowledge was at least a bit unethical.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/DinosaurMailingGroup/1522451835.1327697.1766120300364%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Gregory Paul]

Anyone is free to consider early Barremian Paulodon a junior synonym of probably late Barremian or maybe early Aptian Iguanodon, which lived 5-7 million years later. Not likely to happen. 

I am royally ticked about the attacks and the nonscientific attitude of a lot of people. 

Why are folks getting bashing SanCarlo et al. for doing what should have been done years ago, and get the Iberian material out of the misleading assignment to Iguanodon which I in the 2000s showed should never, ever, ever be used as a toss it in there wastebasket taxon again, ever (unless solid positive evidence shows a genus level association). While not getting after how the Iberian remains having been put into Iguanodon without sufficient anatomical or stratigraphic justification? 

Following the non-wastebasket paradigm that became the consensus on Iguanodon, here is what should have happened. I was very bothered that the Verdu et al. (2015) put juvenile remains that are inherently not sufficiently diagnostic into Iguanodon -- do we have even juvenile Iguanodon to compare them to? -- when I warned against this, and in a new species which is bad practice. Reviewers should have said no. Why was there not a wave of criticism saying never put anything in Igianodon unless there is good reason to do it, and don't name baby dinosaurs -- should violation of basic taxonomic methods not have been considered "taxonomic vandalism?" Was I asked by Verdu et al. my opinion on the matter? No. Was paper sent to me to review? No. And that is OK, because consulting with other researchers has always been optional in science, not required. And when others do not do it with me that seems OK -- but not when I and others dare not contact others its a huge deal. 

BTW, when I renamed the N Amer Iguanodon as Dakotadon, I did not ask the describers about it, not close to being necessary. When I did it, the lead author said OK fine, no problem.  When people were disputing some of my iguanodont names did they first discuss matters with me? No. Not standard procedure. I would have been surprised if they did. This is  paleopolitics. 

What should have happened is this. The evidence burden is automatically against putting anything into Iguanodon that is not from the later Barremian/early Aptian and not a good morphological match. When the juvenile remains were published, Verdu et al., as I advised in my papers on iguanodonts, should have cited them as taxonomic floaters -- which is often done and always should be in such circumstances -- until adult remains were found. (This appears to be occurring in N Europe -- after I coined Mantellisaurus which all use, all sorts of fragmentary specimens from hither and yon were being tossed into it despite my saying don't do that. Now that it is being realized that Dollodon is valid that practice appears to being stopped, when it never should have happened.) 

When later papers came out with adult remains I was rolling my irritated eyes. They should have noted the geotime difference, diagnosed the remains which is not hard to do, and assigned them a new genus. Problem solved. I doubt anyone would have disagreed. But -- as John Belushi used to say on SNL -- no. For reasons I do not comprehend they missed getting taxonomic priority for years by putting galvensis in a new genus that all would have been good with. I would have been very pleased. Hooray! 

With their not doing so I could have done a paper myself. But before getting back to iguanodonts if I ever do, I was waiting for the long needed Dollodon description. When Franco said he was going to name it I thought well about time. What is important is that a name be applied to specimens already in the literature in order to not let an incorrect assignment linger on, not who does it. With three galvensis publications it is well past having to ask permission to do what should have already been done, never thought that he and company had to ask. If I were at an institution and I published a series of papers on specimens over the years I would of course assume they are open for analysis by others as they wish -- who would continue to cling on to fossils that are supposed to be in the public domain for continuing work? I would be pleased to see others doing there thing with them. And if I had not given them a generic title when that was the best option and someone else did, then my problem. As it is, because the Iberian situation has after years of exasperation been dealt with to my relief, the possibility that I will do more work on the subject is reduced. Yes, I know that you are all dismayed to hear that. 

I never publicly complained about the Iguanodon galvensis situation because the researchers thought they were doing the best thing. I am now doing so only because of the virulent, nonprofessional attacks on my colleagues leaves no choice -- you people started this and those who are leaning into it should be ashamed. Again, why is assigning a species title to juvenile remains, and then using Iguanodon as a wastebasket for years when doing thinsg like that are no longer accepted practice, accepted as a matter of course rather than "taxonomic vandalism," when correcting the problem with a paper that meets ICZN needs, and coins a name that will be in regular use, and is overall right, hyperbolically slandered as "taxonomic vandalism." This is paleopolitics intended by some to try to control research in violation of free academic discourse, not science.  

In particular, I suspect the person P. galvensis  is named after has a good deal to do with this. As per Mickey's list of Paulo.....s. Is people naming something after me inappropriate? Been done three times now. Say Mickey had a bunch of fossils named after her by friendly colleagues, you know, Mortimerodon, Mortimerosaurus, Mortimervenator, Mortimerceratops. Mortimercephale....pretty nifty names in my opinion. Would any protest? I would hope not:) Good for her. 

The Megapnosaurus thing is not comparable to Paulodon. The problem was not that the first was done (most think the genus is valid), it was that the name was crafted to be offensive. Sancarlo et al. are enthusiastic dinosaur researchers eager to get taxa that need naming named. 

Sancarlo et al. is not PV. Neither was Verdu et al. I. galvensis. But the first paper is essentially correct, the latter work much less so. Sancarlo and company's work should be considered a useful contribution to the taxonomic literature that resolved an issue, and can be critically assessed as are all peer-reviewed works going into the future. 

Oh, and is it not funny how many go on and on about how important peer-review is, and then when a PRed paper they don't like appears they trash and bash it? Often without doing a rigorous analysis of it. Anyone noticed that? 

GSPaul

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/DinosaurMailingGroup/47A1B185-5037-40D7-8112-78C8A48ADE04%40gmail.com

.

[Gregory Paul]

Folks have severely criticized and rejected some of my dinonames in the literature without first asking me about it. So? Happens in taxonomy all the time. 

To put it another way, if some realize a previously named taxon actually needs a new name, then they have to ask the person who named it if they approve of the new title. Nothing wrong with that, but not an actual ethical problem or vandalism. 

GSPaul

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/DinosaurMailingGroup/CALAi95Epr9Lgc_TDF6owxkUTJ-368kZn79LfJYmjhHkREYm3xQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mickey Mortimer]

"

That was the doing of the Verdu et al., why are they not being charged with inappropriate taxonomy for using Iguanodon as a wastebasket taxon when that practice was rejected in the 2000s?"

"Again, this all could have been avoided had the specimens been given a new binomial name in one of the two, that's two, papers that described the adults."

Both the paper naming galvensis and Verdu et al. (2017; using adult remains as well) performed phylogenetic analyses which recovered galvensis as sister to bernissartensis, so they were using Iguanodon in its modern, limited context and were justified in placing galvensis in that genus. Maybe your analysis is right that it's actually outside Hadrosauriformes instead, but you can't accuse Verdu et al. of using the wastebasket concept of Iguanodon or of recovering any topological result after adding adult remains that would necessitate removing it from Iguanodon. 

" As per Mickey's list of Paulo.....s. Is people naming something after me inappropriate? Been done three times now. Say Mickey had a bunch of fossils named after her by friendly colleagues, you know, Mortimerodon, Mortimerosaurus, Mortimervenator, Mortimerceratops. Mortimercephale....pretty nifty names in my opinion. Would any protest? I would hope not:) Good for her."

Aw, you left out "Mortimeraptor" that would flow with the end of my name. ;)

Mickey Mortimer(aptor)

[The Dinosaur Heretic]

The problem here is that there is no professional courtesy extended to the people currently researching galvensis, nor to those researching Nanotyrannus (including Napoli & Zanno, and Carr et al.). This is not only unethical as Sancarlo et al. has stacked on additional work for the scientists that are now studying galvensis, but has stripped them of naming rights. Moreover, Sancarlo et al. has published to Mesozoic, a journal with far more relaxed standards than Nature or Science, for example. This has allowed shoddy work based on second- and third-hand accounts to be published.

The difference between this and the rejection of some of the taxa you’ve named is that significant work has gone into breaking down exactly *why* they are indistinguishable from existing taxa (Mantellodon and Dollodon come to mind). There has not been a similar effort by Sancarlo et al. to adequately distinguish galvensis.

I am of the belief that the naming of Paulodon violates Article 15 and (potentially) 16 of the ICZN; “we propose referring to the Galve material *provisionally* as unnamed genus (sic)”. Additionally, the persistent use of “unnamed genus galvensis” and its shortened version “ug galvensis” should be considered a conditional proposal at best, and thus Paulodon is not available. 

Regardless, based on the sentiment here, it seems that Paulodon will not be used by the community moving forward.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/DinosaurMailingGroup/1406807361.1335479.1766121296424%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Henry Thomas]

I will note, while there are three papers out there describing material of galvensis (four if you count this one), the author list makes it evident that this is the same group of researchers working on this taxon. Verdú and Cobos are authors on all four, and all authors are affiliated with the same institution. That should be indicative enough of active, ongoing research (the most recent paper is from last year) on this taxon by the same working group. In which case the professional and courteous thing to do would be to reach out to them first before taking taxonomic action.

Additionally, the entire Barremian is 5.1 million years long after Gradstein et al. 2020. The Camarillas Formation is constrained to "early to early late Barremian" after Barrón et al. 2025, and galvensis comes from approximately the middle of the formation. The Bernissart Iguanodon pit is dated to near the Barremian-Aptian border, after Yans et al. 2012. The upper boundary of Wessex Formation, from which I. bernissartensis (or at least I. cf. bernissartensis after Lockwood et al. 2024) has been reported, is late Barremian but not end-Barremian after Jacobs et al. 2023. The temporal gap may not have been as large as is being implied here.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/DinosaurMailingGroup/1966446311.1333421.1766120784623%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Gregory Paul]

According to the International Chronostratigraphic Chart the Barremian is 129.4 to 121.4 MA (the values have changed, they are different in my older field guides). Looks like a time gap around 5-6 MA, could be 4, maybe 7 -- age of the Bernissart quarry as a time range of 2-3 MA as I recall, the sink hole deposits being hard to pin down.

The last Verdu paper was 2021, unless I am missing something? Just how long do folks have an exclusive right on specimens they have described repeatedly and kept in the patently wrong, wastebasket genus? 

GSPaul

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/DinosaurMailingGroup/CAC4cqEWg89XogqHO9wKryoTHLb8nPRj5R05Vs5FFpoOBEYky8g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jaime Headden]

Research takes YEARS.

Say that you were present at the excavation and initial prep for Sue, and decided then that it was distinct from T. rex, so, by the time the Field acquired it, and it underwent proper prep and study by Brochu and the others who helped work the material, you decided to report your new taxonomy them. During its (brief) accessibility before being interred in a warehouse prior to auction, any person might have claimed the provenance to take the specimen in hand and describe some salient feature as diagnostic and gotten the paper to press ... somehow. In the six+ years between acquisition and Broshu's 2003 paper describing its osteology, during which time its preparation was undertaken [mostly] in the public eye, FMNH PR 2081 could equally have been "accessible" to researchers to let anyone slip a note or two into press in some journal that didn't have the wherewithal to forbid "claim jumping." Yet, in those six (and months) years, anyone would know that there was active research being done, the same as had been on Jane.

That was SIX YEARS during which prep and research was being done.

It was quipped once or fourteen times to me that Chatterjee notoriously keeps the pieces of "Protoavis" in a safe; I don't know if this was ever true, or still is if it were, but it's sad to know that this material cannot be worked and isn't (apparently) but no one else does anything when they do get to see it because of ... professional courtesy. Other people "keep their claim" through other unsavory and often unprofessional means. All to stop exactly what I describe above: preempting researchers from seeing some critical or salient feature and "getting ahead of the prior claimant."

Ethical or not as to what those people have done, I tend to think that the lifetime of the fossil has taken many millions of years to get here, and what's a few years, ultimately? This isn't a timely issue where study must be undertaken in a few months (or years) before the material degrades. Homo floresiensis was almost (allegedy) destroyed by zealous caretakers when handing the material over lest they have their opinions disputed in the press and in publication, and the fossils were particularly fragile. Others, like the Bernissart Iguanodon, have to be kept in controlled chambers that limit researcher access less their pyrite oxidization proceed faster, which will actually destroy those bones. These issues aren't before us, to the best of my knowledge. Can we not be patient? I've waited since I heard of GIN 100/42 in the late 90s for it to be described, and have long dreamed of being part of the study team that finally, eventually, grants it a name (no, it's not C. osmolskae, nor is it O. mongoliensis, but what it could be named is just ... not there. We were all waiting as Barsbold Rinchen supposedly was working on that description, and with his passing, it will be passed to his successors at the GIN/IGM. I am saddened more than anxious for the work that will come, and should it take another 20+ years will be happy on that day.

Cheers,

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/DinosaurMailingGroup/430313705.1344699.1766129659140%40mail.yahoo.com.

--

Jaime A. Headden

The Bite Stuff: http://qilong.wordpress.com/

"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth" - P. B. Medawar (1969)

[Stephen Poropat]

Your Barremian dates are out of date, as it were:

https://stratigraphy.org/chart/

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/

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/DinosaurMailingGroup/430313705.1344699.1766129659140%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Mickey Mortimer]

An aspect of this issue that hasn't really been mentioned here (though Curtice acknowledged it in his Utetitan blog post) is that a taxon being named isn't really THAT important. We could just call it Iguanodon? galvensis if Paul's analysis has salient evidence to place it differently than Verdu et al.'s, or even "Iguanodon" galvensis if we think Paul's placement is better supported. There shouldn't be an imperative to name every genus, species and clade. When I think about the authors with the most useful publications, it's e.g. Currie's very detailed descriptions, or Rauhut's accurate phylogenetic scoring, Norell's excellent photographs and public CT scans, Hendrickx's meticulous dental analyses, etc..  Those all take a lot of effort and skill, but anyone can name something. To take an example from a different Paul, Sereno sure did name lots of taxa in the 90s and early 2000s, but if anything those papers naming Afrovenator, Jobaria, Suchomimus, Deltadromeus, Eodromaeus, Raptorex, Spinostropheus, etc. then leaving them to rot for decades without detailed descriptive work or decent figures are frustrating instead of impressive. The good ones were the detailed descriptions of Psittacosaurus, Lesothosaurus, Herrerasaurus, Iberomesornis, Huayangosaurus, etc. that he generally had no part in naming.

Mickey Mortimer

[Ethan Schoales]

I see your point, though having a name probably does make a taxon much easier to refer to.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/DinosaurMailingGroup/e81db48a-6e1c-4689-bb6e-10abe173aebfn%40googlegroups.com.