[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of
> Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2000 12:30 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Tarbosaurus?
> Hey Everybody,
> I've been wondering about this for a while now. Is Tarbosaurus still a
> valid species name?
Well, it's a genus name, not a species name...
Anyway, it is a good useable name. By priority, the name of the big
Mongolian tyrannosaur (assuming it is a single species) is _Tyrannosaurus
bataar_. _Tarbosaurus efremovi_ was used for a more complete, smaller
specimen: most (but not all) workers consider this specimen a subadult of
the first one.
So, given this, there are two choices: call it _Tyrannosaurus bataar_ or
call it _Tarbosaurus bataar_. Should you have evidence that the Mongolian
form is more closely related to _T. rex_ than to any other named
tyrannosaurid, then you can use the first of these names to convey that.
However, there is nothing illegitimate about using the name _Tarbosaurus_,
and for that matter should you consider _Tarbosaurus_ to be more distantly
related to _T. rex_ than some other named tyrannosaurids, then you most
certainly SHOULDN'T call it _Tyrannosaurus bataar_!
Hope this helps,
Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Department of Geology Director, Earth, Life & Time Program
University of Maryland College Park Scholars
College Park, MD 20742
Phone: 301-405-4084 Email: email@example.com
Fax (Geol): 301-314-9661 Fax (CPS-ELT): 301-314-7843