[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Tyrannosaur imperialis
Subject: Re: Tyrannosaur imperialis
Mike Keesey wrote:
> This brings up another question I've been meaning to ask. _Deinodon_ was
> named half a century before _Tyrannosaurus_, and it was given its own
> family. Thus, technically shouldn't the taxa Tyrannosauroidea,
> Tyrannosauridae, etc. be called Deinodontoidea, Deinodontidae, etc.?
> _Deinodon_ may be dubious, but no one disputes that it belongs in the same
> family as _Tyrannosaurus_. There are other cases where families are named
> after invalid/dubious genera: Ceratopsidae, Caenagnathidae, etc.
And whatever happened to _Tarbosaurus bataar_? Does the holotype display
enough differences from the _Tyrannosaurus_ holotype to warrant a separate
genus? Or should _T. bataar_ actually refer to _Tyrannosaurus bataar_?
Mines and Geosciences Bureau
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12