[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]


>From: Stang1996@aol.com
 > swf@ElSegundoCA.ATTGIS.COM
 > <<Dyslocosaurus - "misplaced lizard", from "dys"="un-" + locus="place".
 > In other words, it was *named* for its lack of context!!>>
 > How can this name be valid?  Doesn't an animal need a better description of
 > where it's from than 'Wyoming'?

No.  The rules do not require locality data.  All that is required
is: a type specimen/species, a name, a differential diagnosis,
and a clear indication of intent to establish a new name. These
things must be published in an "accessible", "permanent" place.

The paper that described it meets these requirements handily.
Dyslocosaurus is a valid name, no question of that.

[As it is, half the paper was dedicated to discussing its probable
provenance - without reaching a firm conclusion].

swf@elsegundoca.attgis.com              sarima@netcom.com

The peace of God be with you.