>>4931032
>some will make a new species based on as little as 4 teeth
God I fucking hate retards like OP.
This only happens on extremely rare occasions, even then it is given the title of dubious genus because we don't have enough evidence to prove that it is a new species.

But wanna learn why there usually are species named after a few "teeth" by your definition?
To start off, if we uncover some extremely fragmentary remains, we first look at the geographical location and where the bone beds lie for age and location.
If the fossil overlaps with another dinosaur, we might get clues on what species of dinosaur it is or related to based on similar fossil fragments. If the fragments match with another dinosaur, then it isn't a new species. Its just added material to that established species.

Lets say hypothetically, they find a fragmentary fossil, it doesn't resemble any dinosaur in the formation but it resembles another species from the other side of the globe. Then it either is a new sub-species of a new species entirely that's related.
Now take it even further, if we uncover fragmentary fossils and it doesn't resemble any dinosaur... It usually isn't even given a name. Its most often just shelved for the future until we have more material to properly give it a new name.
>>4931044
Is right to an extent, there's some paleontologists that overhype the fuck out of a toe they've found and called it "le most epic dino!" for clout and money. But professional paleontologist most of the time shelve findings that have insufficient information to give create a new species for the genus.

Back | Go to board

Board:

/an/

Thread:

>be me, kid>discover dinosaurs>hell yeah.epic>be me, now>start getting into paleontology>find out that most…

>be me, kid
>discover dinosaurs
>hell yeah.epic
>be me, now
>start getting into paleontology
>find out that most…