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

"Morosaurus" agilis

Can anyone tell me what is going on with _"Morosaurus" agilis_.  I mean 
_M._ is basically a dead genus right?  (Junior synonym of 
_Camarasaurus_.)  But _"M."agilis_ is a cetiosaurid, am I correct?  Why 
can't we use the _Morosaurus_ name and make _M.agilis_ the type species, 
instead of making a new generic name? (This same thing probably could've 
been done with _Anatosaurus_ et _Anatotitan_).  Is there something wrong 
with this reasoning?

What is the deal with _"Carnosaurus"_ and _"Coelurosaurus"_... I know 
they're both noomin nudia, named by von Huene in 1929.  Why can't we 
just obliterate the names if they have no scientifical value, or open 
them up to be able to be used for some other genus or something.  

Bronson Barton

P.S.- I don't really have anything against any of these names, and I'm 
not mad or flaming or anything...

Get Private Web-Based Email Free http://www.hotmail.com