Redondasuchus

The orientation of the dorsal paramedian osteoderms of Redondasuchus has been disputed. Originally, Hunt & Lucas (1991) argued that the angled part of the osteoderm was two thirds the way down from the medial edge. The holotype osteoderm of R. reseri was identified as a left paramedian based on the position of the anterior bar, an unornamented strip of bone that is known to lie on the front edge of the osteoderm in other aetosaurs.[1] This interpretation was repeated in subsequent papers by Heckert et al. (1996)[3] and Heckert & Lucas (2000).

In 2002, an unpublished Texas Tech University thesis by Jeffrey Martz claimed that the holotype of R. reseri was actually a right paramedian. This was justified by comparison to the structure and ossification pattern of Typothorax coccinarum, a closely related species of aetosaur. Martz also suggested that R. reseri was synonymous with Typothorax coccinarum.[4]

This thesis, though widely disseminated among aetosaur workers, was not published in a peer-reviewed journal. An equivalent reinterpretation of Redondasuchus' osteoderm was first described in a peer-reviewed journal by Spielmann et al. (2006), a review of the taxon published in the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. Spielmann, Hunt, and Lucas, who all contributed to the article, were also members of the editorial board for the Bulletin, while Hunt was additionally the museum director at the time. They claimed to provide a novel interpretation of the holotype osteoderm as a right paramedian, noting that the orientation of the osteoderm in the diagrams of previous published papers may have introduced confusion. One diagram, from Heckert et al. (1996), depicted the anterior margin as placed near the bottom of the page with the posterior margin near the top, which may have contributed to its misidentification.[2] Martz's 2002 thesis was widely cited, but only in criticism of his argument that Redondasuchus and Typothorax were synonymous. His arguments on osteoderm orientation were not mentioned.[5]

In 2007, Martz, along with fellow paleontologists Darren Naish, Mike Taylor, and Matt Wedel, publicly accused Spielmann et al. of committing plagiarism.[6] They asserted that the authors of Spielmann et al. (2006) could not have come up with the same interpretation as Martz independently. They pointed to how the authors were in possession of the 2002 thesis for three years, their extensive citation of the thesis, and similarities between certain figures in Spielmann et al. (2006) and the thesis.[5] This controversy was connected to a similar allegation of ethical misconduct and editorial mismanagement related to an aetosaur paper published by NMMNH staff in December 2006. The paper in question provided the genus name Rioarribasuchus for a species of aetosaur which Bill Parker was in the process of publishing under the name Heliocanthus, although Parker's paper was not fully published until January 2007. These coinciding controversies, termed "Aetogate", were publicized both in the scientific community[7] and in local Albuquerque news.[8]

After requests for a New Mexico Department of Cultural Affairs inquiry, Martz et al.'s allegations, as well as those of Parker, were reviewed and rejected in a 2008 NMMNH meeting which was subsequently reported by Lucas. Lucas's report phrased the omittance of Martz's identification as an "oversight" by Spielmann et al. (2006), and also argued that pre-2002 papers on the topic presented "inconsistencies" rather than a specific argument on orientation.[9] The report's arguments and conclusions were heavily criticized by the accusing parties.[5][8] A separate independent investigation by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology did not find evidence for explicit, intentional plagiarism in Spielmann et al. (2006). The SVP report did not "absolve either party from responsibility", and also criticize the editorial and regulatory practices of the NMMNH and its staff, the lack of communication or collaboration experienced during the situation, and the difficulty in proving plagiarism or conflicts of interest in paleontological work.[10] A revised code of ethics was published by the SVP alongside the results of their investigation.[11]