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

Re: More Dino Genera List Stuff



In a message dated 95-10-24 03:58:02 EDT, DSmith0531@aol.com writes:

>"Laelaps Cope, 1866/Koch, 1839"
>
>Isn't _Laelaps_ (Cope 1866) synonymous with _Dryptosaurus_ (Marsh, 1877)?  I
>understood that, even though _Dryptosaurus_ was named after _Laelaps_ was,
>and even though both names were given to the same animal (not the same
>specimen, of course), _Laelaps_ had to be dropped because it was already
>taken (some beetle genus or something).  Thus the proper name for both
>animals should be _Dryptosaurus_.  Am I mistaken?
>
>And where does Koch come into all of this?
>

Just a bit. My list as posted carries all dinosaur genera, whether synonyms
of other names or not, and doesn't tell you whether they're synonyms of other
genera or not (I have to draw the line somewhere; otherwise I might as well
include everything!). But if a genus is preoccupied, I list the author of the
preoccupying genus after the author of the dinosaur genus. In the case of
_Laelaps_, it was proposed by Cope but preoccupied by Koch's genus. Marsh's
name _Dryptosaurus_ was proposed as a replacement name for Cope's _Laelaps_,
so it is indeed given to the very same specimens that Cope's name was given
to.

>"Neosaurus Gilmore vide Gilmore & Stewart, 1945/Nopcsa, 1923"
>
>Does this mean that the name was originally proposed by Nopcsa in 1923, then
>in 1945 Gilmore & Stewart gave credit to Gilmore?  

See above. Nopsca's _Neosaurus_ preoccupies Gilmore's _Neosaurus_. (The
replacement name for the dinosaur genus _Neosaurus_ is _Parrosaurus_.) The
"vide" indicates that Gilmore alone proposed the name within a work by
himself and Stewart.

G.O.