Agnosphitys: paternity unknown

Linnaeus

The small Triassic reptile Agnosphytis has a most appropriate name: it means "unknown begetter". Nobody's child. And perhaps no other dinosaur...if this is indeed a dinosaur...has been subjected to so much scientific controversy. Agnosphytis, known only from a small heap of bones which may belong to at least two distinct species, has been called everything: arcosaur, ornithodire, saurischian, dinosauromorph, theropod, sauropodomorph, guaibasaurid...But until today, palaeontology has not been able to determine categorically just what this little creature is. Discovered in Avon, England, it was first described in 2002. It was a cute, appealing chap, bipedal, a little bit more than two feet long, and as light as a hen. Agnosphitys, an unsolved mystery, just MIGHT represent the dawn-dinosaur; it seems far too primitive to be a sauropodomorph or member of the Guaibasauridae, but some palaeontologists have placed it in those categories...A fascinating reptile, at any rate.

https://vmnhpaleontology.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/from-the-collections-room-agnosphitys/

Adam Khor

I have somewhat of an issue with giving names and classifications to animals known from measly remains. More often than not, when new, more complete specimens are found, they turn out to be something quite different to what the scientists had imagined.
Remember how many supossed "early dinosaurs" were found to be dinosaur-mimicking crocodile relatives?

Linnaeus

Yes, Adam, I know it's not easy to reconstruct an animal from sparse remains, and then to construct a convincing theory about that animal. Yet, in the case of Agnosphitys and many other mysterious creatures, it seems that we have fossil evidence sufficient (albeit just barely) to have a notion of preliminary classification. But too many palaeontologists do not use brilliant, penetrating Sherlock techniques in their examination and evaluation of fossils. I'd wager that Holmes would have made sense out of Agnosphitys after looking at just one bone.

There are certain typical anatomical features, and peculiarities, which distinguish species from one another. Anatomy is definitely not my strongest point; and at this moment, I am not able to interpret meagre fossils very well. But the professionals with two or three university degrees in palaeontology should be skilled in this. Certainly it helps a lot to have complete skeletons available. But considering the shortage of these, I think that we should do the best we can with what little we have, attempting to determine the identities of these ancient creatures without jumping to hasty conclusions. Tentative classification based upon logical methodical research is fine, until that moment when we do find more material evidence. But we palaeontologists are investigators: we should never cease to seek, ponder and theorize.

Adam Khor

I say, put the fossils in a drawer, go out to the field and find more. As scientists discuss fragmentary fossils and get into heated arguments with each other over who's right, fossil poachers find all the good remains and sell them to private owners, and then those fossils are never studied and all the questions that could've been answered remain unsolved.

Linnaeus

You're right about the poachers. And YES, surely we need to be out in the field, looking constantly for more material evidence. Instead of yelling at each other over fine points of classification, palaeontologists should try to get together amicably, examining in a civil manner the fossils they already have and going out to seek more.

So we agree to agree, this time!;)

Adam Khor

It was bound to happen one day