[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Re: Lagosuchus
From: "King, Norm" <email@example.com>
> I assume _Lagosuchus_ has been renamed because the type material is
> non-diagnostic at the generic level. I seem to recall that
> rediagnosis, accompanied by designation of new type specimens (there
> are typological terms for that) is allowable in taxonomy, No?
Not quite. A *new* genus was described that specifically *excluded*
the type specimen of Lagosuchus. This is perfectly allowable.
> Why wasn't that done in this case? Was the situation similar for
> _Anatosaurus_ (now _Anatotitan_) and _Coelophysis_ (now
> _Rioarribasaurus_), and maybe others?
Also, Anatosaurus is now a junor synonym of *Edmontosaurus*. One
species that had formerly been placed in Anatosaurus was found not to
fit in Edmontosaurus and was placed in a new genus - Anatotitan.
> I understand that replacing the name _Coelophysis_ by
> _Rioarribasaurus_ for virtually all specimens formerly referred to
> as _Coelophysis_,...
Again, nobody has done any such thing. The *type* material of
Coelophysis is NOT included in Rioarribasaurus. In fact R. was
erected solely for the Ghost Ranch specimens.
[Subsequent work at the Coelophysis type locality has uncovered
additional specimens, which the discoverer claims are generically
distinct from Rioarribasaurus - if verified this would mean that
both R. and C. are valid genera].
The peace of God be with you.