Wednesday, February 25, 2009

stegopod!

ResearchBlogging.org

Photo (Octavio Mateus) and reconstruction (from the paper) of the new stegosaur Miragaia longicollum.

Once again I'm late to the party. Miragaia longicollum is the newly published, long-necked sauropod mimicing stegosaur from the Late Jurassic of Portugal that was featured in loads of blogs yesterday. Attendees of the SVP annual meeting may have actually caught the reconstruction of Miragaia way back in 2007, in Austin. Even though it was only up on screen for a short time, the crazy long neck was immediately obvious, and I've been waiting for it to be published ever since.

Ayway neck elongation in this stegosaur was covered very well by Matt Wedel here. So I won't spend anymore words on it here. Instead I'll delve into the systematics of Miragaia. At the outset let me say that I think the authors have done a great job in this paper and they are thoroughly deserve the publicity they are getting. However this one lttle niggly aspect of the paper has not convinced me and I want to raise the issue here because the fault seems to lie with the whole culture of publication in palaeontology, rather than with these specific authors.

First off Miragaia shares a bunch of characters with the roughly co-eval English stegosaur, Dacenturus. These include fusion of the cervical vertebra to their respective centra, dorsal vertebral centra that are wider than long and olecranon process of the ulna developed into a horn-like prong (you can see this last feature clearly in the photo above). Indeed when the two are included in a cladistic analysis the two form a well supported clade which the Mateus et al. call the Dacenturinae. Another interesting tidbit is that the new data from Miragaia shifts Dacenturus from its usual basal position amongst stegosaurids to a derived position next to Stegosaurus itself. Interestingly though when Mateus showcased this skeleton in 2007 he had identified it AS Dacenturus.
So what makes Miragaia distinct? Obviously its unusually high number of neck vertebrae is a wierd feature (and there are several others listed in the diagnosis) but this cannot be determined in Dacenturus because it is mostly known from the backend of the animal while Miragaia is largely known from the front.

Indeed due to this non-overlapping parts problem just about all of the autapomorphies of Miragaia are not determinable in Dacenturus. So is there a justification for erecting a new taxon? I went through the character taxon matrix in the supplemental material in order to find out if there was any observable differenceand found a few points of difference. All but one f these concerned the continuously variable characters (e.g. ratio of distal width of the humerus to its length)and in most cases the difference was slight so that in more traditional discrete character state coding these features might be given the same state. The one discrete character difference in the matrix concerned the robustness of the dorsal plates but once again the known plates of Miragaia are from the front of the animal while those known from Dacenturus come from further back so we may not be compareing the same thing.

In all there seems justification for at most a new species of Dacenturus (especially since its sister taxon Stegosaurus, houses three species which display more disparity than these two genera). Maybe I'm missing something but f so the authors really could have made the distinction between these two genera clearer.

Does erecting a new taxon make publishing a new fossil easier? It shouldn't, the Miragaia fossils are fantastic enough to deserve publication in the Proceedings. But nonetheless I have heard talk that editors of these high-impact broad science journals are less keen to publish palaeontology if it doesn't involve a new taxon. If this is so, and I hope it isn't, then it is a practice that has to stop, an important fossil that throws new light on evolution or palaeobiology deserves recognition wether or not it represents a new taxon.

Mateus, O., Maidment, S. C. R., Christiansen, N. A. (2009). A new long-necked ‘sauropod-mimic’ stegosaur
and the evolution of the plated dinosaurs Proceedings of the Royal Society B DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2008.1909

26 comments:

David Marjanović said...

fusion of the cervical vertebra to their respective centra

What do you mean?

In all there seems justification for at most a new species of Dacenturus

But where's the difference between a second species and a new genus? Has Tom Holtz started selling his genericometer? ;-)

(especially since its sister taxon Stegosaurus, houses three species which display more disparity than these two genera).

Fine, but it's not like the ICZN mandated consistency or anything.

Adam Yates said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Adam Yates said...

"fusion of the cervical vertebra to their respective centra"

What do you mean?

Oops, I meant fusion of the cervical RIBS to their respective centra.

"In all there seems justification for at most a new species of Dacenturus"

But where's the difference between a second species and a new genus? Has Tom Holtz started selling his genericometer? ;-)

You are absolutely correct of course, there is no difference in a strict phylogenetic sense. I was drifting lazily into the realm of subjective classification.
If we are to treat genera as clades then Miragaia is obviously redundant. Not that I mind redundancy when it comes to genera. We may find a new species that is the sister of another but differs in a substantially large number of characters, indicating quite a large number of missing taxa fell between them. A new genus would be redundant at the time the new species was named but a new one would probably be coined anyway, if some of these missing taxa were subsequently discovered. In this case however the differences are so slight that a case can be made that there is no new taxon at all - we simply won't know how significant the slight differences are until such time as we have a decent sample. Thus I am reserved about erecting a new genus level taxon (these do carry with them certain expectations of distinctiveness and disparity - with very subjective and nebulous values, granted). The problem is lessened of course if we swap to uninomial names, but we are stuck with the baggage of binomial names and the desire to treat genera as clades.

"(especially since its sister taxon Stegosaurus, houses three species which display more disparity than these two genera)."

Fine, but it's not like the ICZN mandated consistency or anything.

True, but that doesn't mean that its a good idea to ignore it completely.

Mike Taylor said...

Who told you you have to treat genera as clades? I hope you punched them in the back of the neck.

Raptor Lewis said...

Sounds like a wierd genetic engineered dinosaur-mutant from an equally wierd Science-fiction movie, lol. I'm intrigued. It begs the question "What has evolution wrought?"

Zach said...

It's "stegosauropod," brother. :-)

Jaime A. Headden said...

As regards the question of genera vs species, I would err on the side of species of established genera where evident, than new genera, simply because there is little distinction on a phylogenetic tree. However, at the opposite side of this issue is where a genus means more than a species, even if the positioning is the same, largely because of the notoriety and distinction that derives from having named a genus, rather than a species of an otherwise well-known species (which is already somewhat of an historic basket of species).

Mike Taylor said...

Given that both genera and species are frankly arbitrary when dealing with fossil organisms, I think it's better to make new genera, if only because they are uninomials -- so the mere name doesn't commit you to a phylogenetic hypothesis.

wow gold said...

Weekends to peopleig2tmean that they can have a two-day wowgold4europe good rest. For example, people gameusdcan go out to enjoy themselves or get meinwowgoldtogether with relatives and friends to talk with each storeingameother or watch interesting video tapes with the speebiewhole family.
Everyone spends agamegoldweekends in his ownmmoflyway. Within two days,some people can relax themselves by listening to music, reading novels,or watchingogeworld films. Others perhaps are more active by playing basketball,wimming ormmorpgvipdancing. Different people have different gamesavorrelaxations.
I often spend weekends withoggsalemy family or my friends. Sometimes my parents take me on a visit to their old friends. Sometimesgamersell I go to the library to study or borrow some books tommovirtexgain much knowledge. I also go to see various exhibition to broadenrpg tradermy vision. An excursion to seashore or mountain resorts is my favorite way of spending weekends. Weekends are always enjoyable for me.
igxe swagvaultoforu wowgold-usaignmax wowgoldlivebrogame thsaleGoldRockUbrogameswagvaultgoldsoonoforuigxethsale

Anonymous said...

出会い喫茶出会いカフェテレクラ不倫セックスフレンドセフレ出会い出会い出会い掲示板出会い出会い出会い人妻風俗デリヘルデリバリーヘルス出会い出会い無料フィリピンライブチャットアダルトライブチャットデリヘル

Anonymous said...

不動産ソープランドアクセスカウンターコレステロール中性脂肪花粉症在宅ワーク内職在宅アルバイト乾燥肌ダイエット 食事サプリメント無料占い出会い山口クレジットカード現金化クレジット現金化ライブチャットフィリピンチャットレディパソコン在宅ワーク

Anonymous said...

出会い豊島区出会い北区出会い荒川区出会い板橋区出会い練馬区出会い足立区出会い葛飾区出会い江戸川区ニキビCholesterol水虫冷え性むくみ産後わきが車買取転職加齢臭

Anonymous said...

出会い愛知出会い秋田出会い青森出会い千葉出会い愛媛出会い福井出会い福岡出会い福島出会い岐阜出会い群馬出会い広島出会い北海道出会い兵庫出会い茨城出会い石川出会い岩手出会い香川出会い鹿児島出会い神奈川出会い高知

Anonymous said...

出会い熊本出会い京都出会い三重出会い宮城出会い宮崎出会い長野出会い長崎出会い奈良出会い新潟出会い大分出会い岡山出会い沖縄出会い大阪出会い佐賀出会い埼玉出会い滋賀出会い島根出会い静岡出会い栃木出会い徳島

Anonymous said...

出会い東京出会い鳥取出会い富山出会い和歌山出会い山形出会い山口出会い山梨出会い北九州出会い下関出会い川崎出会い神戸出会い久留米出会い水戸出会い名古屋出会い大牟田出会い埼玉出会い堺出会い仙台出会い横浜出会い横須賀出会い札幌出会い川崎

Anonymous said...

出会い堺出会い仙台出会い横浜出会い横須賀出会い札幌出会い千代田区出会い中央区出会い港区出会い新宿区出会い文京区出会い台東区出会い墨田区出会い江東区出会い品川区出会い目黒区出会い大田区出会い世田谷区出会い渋谷区出会い中野区出会い杉並区

Anonymous said...

福井出会い愛知出会い岐阜出会い静岡出会い三重出会い兵庫出会い大阪出会い和歌山出会い滋賀出会い京都出会い奈良出会い山口出会い鳥取出会い島根出会い岡山出会い広島出会い徳島出会い香川出会い愛媛出会い高知出会い

Anonymous said...

出会い札幌出会い函館出会い北海道出会い秋田出会い青森出会い岩手出会い東京出会い八王子出会い府中出会い調布出会い銀座出会い仙台出会い優良出会いサイトアダルト盗撮素人熟女エロアニメAV女優

Anonymous said...

出会い愛知出会い秋田出会い青森出会い千葉出会い愛媛出会い福井出会い福岡出会い福島出会い岐阜出会い群馬出会い広島出会い北海道出会い兵庫出会い茨城出会い石川出会い岩手出会い香川出会い鹿児島出会い神奈川出会い高知

Anonymous said...

出会い愛知出会い秋田出会い青森出会い千葉出会い愛媛出会い福井出会い福岡出会い福島出会い岐阜出会い群馬出会い広島出会い北海道出会い兵庫出会い茨城出会い石川出会い岩手出会い香川出会い鹿児島出会い神奈川出会い高知

Anonymous said...

出会い熊本出会い京都出会い三重出会い宮城出会い宮崎出会い長野出会い長崎出会い奈良出会い新潟出会い大分出会い岡山出会い沖縄出会い大阪出会い佐賀出会い埼玉出会い滋賀出会い島根出会い静岡出会い栃木出会い徳島

Anonymous said...

出会い東京出会い大阪出会い福岡出会い兵庫出会い神奈川出会い宮城出会い千葉出会い愛知出会い埼玉出会い青森出会い岩手出会い秋田出会い山形出会い山口出会い東京出会い鳥取出会い富山出会い和歌山出会い山形

Anonymous said...

出会い奈良出会い滋賀出会い三重出会い和歌山出会い愛知出会い静岡出会い岐阜出会い広島出会い岡山出会い山口出会い島根出会い鳥取出会い富山出会い石川出会い福井出会い徳島出会い香川出会い愛媛出会い高知出会い福岡

Anonymous said...

セフレ奈良セフレ滋賀セフレ三重セフレ和歌山セフレ愛知セフレ静岡セフレ岐阜セフレ広島セフレ岡山セフレ山口セフレ島根セフレ鳥取セフレ富山セフレ石川セフレ福井セフレ徳島セフレ香川セフレ愛媛セフレ高知セフレ福岡

Anonymous said...

福井テレクラ愛知テレクラ岐阜テレクラ静岡テレクラ三重テレクラ兵庫テレクラ大阪テレクラ和歌山テレクラ滋賀テレクラ京都テレクラ奈良テレクラ山口テレクラ鳥取テレクラ島根テレクラ岡山テレクラ広島テレクラ徳島テレクラ香川テレクラ愛媛テレクラ高知テレクラ

Anonymous said...

福井セフレ愛知セフレ岐阜セフレ静岡セフレ三重セフレ兵庫セフレ大阪セフレ和歌山セフレ滋賀セフレ京都セフレ奈良セフレ山口セフレ鳥取セフレ島根セフレ岡山セフレ広島セフレ徳島セフレ香川セフレ愛媛セフレ高知セフレ