# Dino mummies! Aaaaa-a-a-aaah! **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 12, 2007, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dino-mummies-aaaaa-a-a-aaah/429731 "2007-12-12T12:22:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Grendel\_s\_Father](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grendel\_s\_Father](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grendel_s_Father)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2007, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dino-mummies-aaaaa-a-a-aaah/429731/21 "2007-12-13T02:22:28Z")
[QUOTE=Darwin’s Finch] _Anatosaurus_ is an obsolete name for _Edmontosaurus_, which is a proper hadrosaur by any definition. Oddly enough, though, given the fragmentary nature of _Hadrosaurus_, the beasty after which all hadrosaurs are named, it’s possible that _Hadrosaurus_ may not itself be a hadrosaur. [/QUOTE] To get technical about it, since the family Hadrosauridae is anchored on _Hadrosaurus_, hadrosaurus can’t not be a hadrosaur. It’s all the other “hadrosaurs” that wouldn’t be hadrosaurs if _Hadrosaurus_ isn’t a hadrosaur (but could a hadrosaur chuck wood…?). The same situation exists with other names for well-known dinosaur groups (titanosaurs, megalosaurs). In those cases there’s been a push to abandon the family names based on dubious species. This hasn’t happened with hadrosaurs (and ceratopsians for that matter, as _Ceratops_ itself is very fragmentary) largely becuase the names are so well known and widely used. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2007, 8:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dino-mummies-aaaaa-a-a-aaah/429731/22 "2007-12-13T08:03:50Z")
[QUOTE=Grendel’s Father] To get technical about it, since the family Hadrosauridae is anchored on _Hadrosaurus_, hadrosaurus can’t not be a hadrosaur. It’s all the other “hadrosaurs” that wouldn’t be hadrosaurs if _Hadrosaurus_ isn’t a hadrosaur (but could a hadrosaur chuck wood…?). [/quote] True. Were _Hadrosaurus_ found to not be a “hadrosaur”, the group name would probably become something like Edmontosauridae (Trachodontidae technically has familial priority, but since _Trachodon_ is itself considered an invalid genus, the next in line appears to be _Edmontosaurus_ for being designated the “type genus” for the family). Given that the postcrania of _Hadrosaurus_ match the rest of the hadrosaurines pretty well (the skull having never been found, for those who weren’t aware), though, it’s unlikely that such a thing will occur. Nevertheless, _Hadrosaurus_ remains a _nomen dubium_, at least until a skull is found. As for ceratopsians, as of 1995, at least, it appears that _Ceratops_ is valid. _Titanosaurus_ and _Megalosaurus_, and their associated familial names, etc., however, are still in trouble. Also, as a minor correction to my post above, there was one species of _Anatosaurus_ which was not renamed to _Edmontosaurus_: _Anatosaurus copei_ was renamed as _Anatotitan copei_…though there is, of course, debate as to whether _Anatotitan_ is really distinct from _Edmontosaurus_. ---
**Author:** ![Zabali\_Clawbane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/ecd19e/32.png) [@Zabali\_Clawbane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zabali_Clawbane)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2007, 8:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dino-mummies-aaaaa-a-a-aaah/429731/23 "2007-12-13T08:32:32Z")
[QUOTE=Terrifel] No kidding. Since when has \*Tyrannosaurus rex \* been established as a scavenger? Just how many large carnivores are known to subsist on a diet of carrion, to the exclusion of active predation? Some internet people are just crazy. [/QUOTE] I thought it was posited by some that the T. Rex was an opportunist, in that they probably did scavenge sometimes, and hunt others? 😕 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dino-mummies-aaaaa-a-a-aaah/429731.md?page=1)