[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Why not Dynamosaurus?
Although _Dynamosaurus imperiosus_ followed _Tyrannosaurus rex_ in Osborn's
1905 paper, page priority is not "officially" recognized as a criterion for
choosing which of two names should become valid in case of synonymy. That's
just a (fairly powerful) convention followed by many workers. In his second
communication on _Tyrannosaurus_ (1906), Osborn sank _Dynamosaurus
imperiosus_ as a synonym of _Tyrannosaurus rex_. It was his choice--a choice
most likely governed by page priority but *not* forced by it--as first
revisor of the genus and species that made it "official."