[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
>Tom Holtz mentioned a study by Creisler which showed that the generic name
>_Centrosaurus_ was not preoccupied and was thus valid for the centrosaurine
>ceratopsian. The only paper by Creisler that I know of was the one on
>_Monoclonius_ and the etymology of Cope's dinosaurs published in JVP in 1992.
>No mention of this is made in this paper. Is the study which you referred
>to been published, and if not could you elaborate on the current situation
>of this taxon, Tom?
Creisler's "paper" I referred to is an unpublished list of the etymology of
all dinosaur generic names. I hope he gets around to finding an
appropriate venue for it.
Basically, the lizard name Centrosaurus has only been used as a junior
synonym, has never been given a type specimen, and has been applied to two
different lizard genera! It was never proposed as a senior taxon, and only
exists in taxonomic lists. There should be no problem sinking this name.
Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Vertebrate Paleontologist in Exile Phone: 703-648-5280
U.S. Geological Survey FAX: 703-648-5420
Branch of Paleontology & Stratigraphy
MS 970 National Center
Reston, VA 22092