Talk:Megapnosaurus (version 2)

This article needs references, especially those confirming that Syntarsus was ruled by the ICZN to be a junior synonym of Megapnosaurus, as Syntarsus is still very much in use in the most current and standard texts on theropods (see The Dinosauria, 2005; 2nd ed., for example).--Nar'eth 22:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Syntasus isn't a junior synonym, it's preoccupied by an insect. Megapnosaurus is the replacement name. I'll try to find a cite. Some researchers still use Syntarsus, I think, either because they don'tr know this or because of the possibly unethical way it was renamed (without notifying Raath and using a "joke" name for a very well-known species).Dinoguy2 22:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Oops. Yeah. You're right, of course. Syntarsus is not a junior synonym, it's just frelling preoccupied. I think I must have been preoccupied when I was writing that...--Nar'eth 22:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

the name Megapnosaurus

The reason why Michael Ivie and his scientists proposed the replacement name Megapnosaurus for the dinosaur originally named "Syntarsus" was that, to Ivie, Megapnosaurus looked like a big dead lizard, hence the reason for the meaning of this genus. Their attempt to contact Michael Raath was unsuccessful, because Raath retired from the Bernard Price Institute for Palaeontological Research. His old address is no longer valid, and I don't know where he is now working at. If Raath realized that the name he gave to the dinosaur in 1969 was pre-occupied by an insect, he would have given "Syntarsus" an appropriate replacement name: Syntarsosaurus, which means fused ankled lizard.

Unfortunately, barring a speciel intervention by the ICZN or synonymy with Coelophysis, Megapnosaurus is the undisputed official name for this dinosaur. Maybe one day a paleontologist will strike back and get the oportunity to reame Drosophilia, THE go-to insect for genetic research, etc., something that means "who cares" ;) Dinoguy2 01:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Quite why Ivie was unable to contact Dr Raath remains unclear - a simple Google search at the time (while Dr Raath was still at the University of the Witwatersrand) would have revealed immediately what his email address was. Perhaps it is understandable, after all, that Ivie wished his name to persist, albeit for work which was not his. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.241.18.34 (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Ivie (me) sent letters to Raath, who did not answer, and waited multiple years for an answer, more than fulfilling the ethics recommendation of the ICZN. Then in one last attempt, a well-known dono-guy at my university was asked if he knew where I could contact Raath, and he told me he was dead. Why does no one mention that the species name Raath gave the animal was a celebration of an outlaw white supremist state? 71.15.208.66 (talk) 02:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)Ivie

Maybe because the country it was found in was called Rhodesia at the time? FunkMonk (talk) 03:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Cladistic study of Megapnosaurus

Although Tykoski (2005) placed Megapnosaurus rhodesiensis in Coelophysis but found M. kayentakatae to be Segisaurus-related, Bristowe & Raath (2004) synonymized Megapnosaurus with Coelophysis because the characters used to diagnose the two genera were the result of incorrect reconstructions. M. rhodesiensis was named by Raath in 1969, M. kayentakatae by Rowe in 1989. Thus, update this webpage by dividing it into the sections about the taxonomy, lifestyle, habitat, and geography and adding new references concerning Megapnosaurus.

Bristowe, A. & M.A. Raath (2004). "A juvenile coelophysoid skull from the Early Jurassic of Zimbabwe, and the synonymy of Coelophysis and Syntarsus." Palaeont. Afr., 40: 31-41.

Tykoski, R. S. (2005). "Anatomy, Ontogeny, and Phylogeny of Coelophysoid Theropods." Ph. D dissertation. University of Texas at Austin. 553 pp. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.194.116.63 (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Actually, I wouldn't mind merging this page with Coelophysis, partly because the whole underhanded sabotage of the name, and Raath's subsequent push to sink these species into Coelophysis. My only concern is that, I think a few refs had placed M. kayentakatae" in its own genus, which could confuse the situation if we merge it before a new genus is named. Dinoguy2 19:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The time to do something is probably getting close; the majority of new references are using C. rhodesiensis, from what I can tell. We can always leave this article for "M." kayentakatae until it gets restudied; something similar is present at Gyposaurus, where the type species is usually thought of as a juvenile Massospondylus, but "G." sinensis gets its own twig in recent cladograms. J. Spencer (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Name dispute

How come they couldn't have just re-named the beetle? 24.4.236.247 (talk) 18:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It was named first, so it has priority. FunkMonk (talk) 18:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, shouldn't Syntarsus be redirecting to somewhere else than here? FunkMonk (talk) 11:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, should direct to the beetle or its family I imagine. Dinoguy2 (talk) 14:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, when most people hear someone mention Syntarsus they picture the much more widely known dinosaur that was formerly referred to by this name, so people would probably look up Syntarsus expecting to find a dinosaur article rather than one on a beetle. By the way, isn't it peculiar how it always seems to be an insect that turns out to have priority over a popular dinosaur name. It is strange to see such a relationship among two completely unrelated groups of animals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.130.109 (talk) 00:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Statistically, since a vast majority of animal species are insects, odds are that if a name has already been used, it will have been used for an insect (probably a beetle). MMartyniuk (talk) 14:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Um...

Would anyone object to me redirecting Big dead lizard here? I can never remember this guy's name. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

As that's what the name means, there shouldn't be a problem. I bet the better known translation of Tyrannosaurus rex is a redirect to there too. FunkMonk (talk) 02:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

New genus?

According to Dr. Holtz's Winter 2010 Dinosaur Genus List, M. kayentakatae is now believed to be its own (and as of yet unnamed) genus. Is this correct?70.80.215.121 (talk) 19:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)Adam70.80.215.121 (talk) 19:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

A quick notice, for anyone who cares..

I just made a redirect page here (that being "Syntarsus (dinosaur)"), just so anyone who types that in is automatically redirected to this page, and thus evading the problem with just redirecting "Syntarsus". Just so we all know. ;) Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

As well, I've decided to try and clean up the article a little (ridding of a IPC section consisting of all of one sentence, grammar and spelling fixes, the works), so I hope nobody is _offended_ by me ridding of a single-sentence section and fixing other things that, well, Just Bug Me. :P Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 13:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)