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

Re: genera.html



In a message dated 95-11-21 05:38:34 EST, jpoling@infinet.com (Jeff Poling)
writes:

>   Thanks.  I'll pass the following on to George Olshevsky, the official
>keeper, to make absolutely sure.  I must have missed correction #6.  HEY
>GEORGE ... if it's not too much trouble, please send any corrections
>directly to myself and Robert, as well as the list.  A bit of triple
>redundancy, as it were.  Do you agree with the following corrections?
>
>>Changtosaurus: Zhao, 1986 [nomen nudum]
>>        per GO's correction #6: the date should be -1983-

Spell it: Changtusaurus Zhao, 1983 [nomen nudum]

>>Damalasaurus: Zhao, 1986 [nomen nudum]
>>        per GO's correction #6: the date should be -1983-

Right.

>>Lancanjiangosaurus: Zhao, 1986 [nomen nudum]
>>        per GO's correction #6: the date should be -1983-
>>        and is out of order

Right. But it's not out of order on my list. It follows Lancangosaurus and
precedes Laornis.

>>Megadontosaurus: Brown vide Chure & McIntosh, 1989
>>        per GO's correction #6:
>>        the entry should be -Brown vide Ostrom, 1970 [nomen nudum]-

Right. Best to put it in quotes, too: "Megadontosaurus"--which is how Ostrom
wrote it.

>>Clarencea: Brink, 1959*
>>Clarensia: Gow & Kitching, 1988*
>>        per GO's correction #12:
>>        these two should be deleted as misspelling and they aren't even
>>dinosaurs
>>        Or should they be deleted?

Delete Clarensia.

>   George's EXACT words were "Perhaps it's time this one was deleted from
>the list as a misspelling."  The meaning of this sentence is open to debate.
>It could mean "maybe we should decide whether to delete this name" or it
>could mean "delete this name."  George?

The problem is one of intent. Clarensia is not _just_ a typo or a
misspelling, it is an attempt to _respell_ a generic name. Does this count as
a new name? Gow & Kitching know the rules, but they tried to do it anyway.
And yeah, although Clarencea had been classified among the dinosaurs at one
time or another, it is now considered a crocodylotarsan thecodontian. In
particular, it was not a dinosaur when Clarensia was proposed and has never
been known as a dinosaur under that particular name. So I delete Clarensia,
but not Clarencea, from the list.

>>Cryptodraco: Lydekker, 1889
>>        per GO's correction #11:
>>        Lydekker's renaming of Cryptosaurus to Cryptodraco was unjustified;
>>        but you (as well as I) still have it in our lists.  Should we?
>
>   This is another question mark, I think, similar to Clarencea/Clarensia.
>Should it be removed, George?

I keep it, because a fair amount of literature has been accumulated for the
taxon under the name Cryptodraco. Also, the intent is there: Lydekker thought
Cryptosaurus was preoccupied and proposed the new name. And it _is_ a
dinosaur.

>>Gobisaurus: Spinar, Currie & Sovak [nomen nudum]
>>        per GO's correction #12: this should be added
>

Right.