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

Re: Re[2]: Lagosuchus



From: "King, Norm" <nking.ucs@smtp.usi.edu>

 > 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].

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

The peace of God be with you.