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


In a message dated 97-07-11 04:56:05 EDT, jdaniel@aristotle.net (Joe Daniel)

<< f L. lilloensis was a junior synonym of L. talampayensis and L.
 talampayensis was thrown out, why did Sereno give it a new genus name? 
 Why did not the junior synonym become the valid name?  It seems to me
 that this would create less confusion by retaining the original genus
 name than throwing both of them out and renaming the genus since that is
 what is most commonly remembered. >>

The synonymy of _L. talampayensis_ and _L. lilloensis_ could not be supported
on the basis of the known material. So the "junior synonym" _L. lilloensis_
did indeed become the valid name, but as the type species of the genus