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

Re: A Clutter of Duckbills



>From: Stang1996@aol.com
 >.  Does anyone 
 > know however, if Procheneosaurus (the juvinile) was named before or 
 > after Hypacrosaurus; since it almost certainly belongs in that genus 
 > (in the big lumped sense, that is), it should have priority over 
 > Hypacrosaurus IF it was named first.

It was described later.  This synonymy has been accepted for many
years now, and if Prochenosaurus were the older name, we would be
using that name instead of one of the others (I do not remember whether
the type species of Prochenosaurus was placed in Lambeosaurus or
in Corythosaurus).

Likewise, we are still using Hypacrosaurus because Chenosaurus is
the junior name.
 > 
 > George Olshevsky has shown that Hadrosaurus is (no joke) a 
 > nomum dubium!  Since there was no skull associated with the 
 > original, no one can really decide which later, and better, described 
 > genus really belongs in Hadrosaurus, if any at all. 


Hmm, perhaps I should separate H. from the Kritosaurus cluster again.

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

The peace of God be with you.