Struthiomfmus, Gallimimus, Dcsplefosaurus, Torboscurus, and Qronnosounrs traditionally have a single species each. (Walking dinosaur costume)This sounds very suspicious. True, dealing with fossils we should not expect to find all of a genera’s species, but there is strong evidence that the genera have been “oversplit.”
This is confirmed by the similarities between some of these genera. An excellent case is $rrcnnosounr rex and Tarbosourus bataar. (animatronic dinosaur)These predators are very alike. If found in the same sediments they would probably be confused as the same species. They certainly show much less difference than seen between jackals and wolves, or lions and leopards. Likewise, Coelophysrs bauri and S;mtcrsus rhodesiensis are no different from one another than species of many modern genera. All the advanced ostrich-mimics are so alike it is often hard to tell them apart.
This means that dinosaurologists have often used generic titles to distinguish what are really species. (Realistic dinosaur costume) Indeed, this has been the usual methodology. It is always enticing to name a whole new genus, but it is too far out of line with modern biology to be tolerable. Therefore, many dinosaur genera should be united. There is no way to justiff keeping Tarbosourus separate from Tyrannosaunr. Synfarsus and Coelophysrs are very probably the same. All advanced ostrich-mimics belong in one gemrs. I do not believe it is useful, I’d say it’s downright misleading-to perpetuate obsolete narnes, even when they are long-established and familiar to the public. So, I have not hesitated to unite taxa when appropriate, although this will be argued over and new data will change things yet again.