[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
In a message dated 7/20/00 11:50:25 AM EST, email@example.com writes:
<< 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_! >>
There are other possibilities: Namely, Tarbosaurus efremovi and Tyrannosaurus
bataar could well belong in different genera, >neither< of which is
Tyrannosaurus. Then the generic name Jenghizkhan is available for the species
Tyrannosaurus bataar. Tarbosaurus efremovi specimens outnumber Jenghizkhan
bataar specimens by about 15 to 3. If T. efremovi is a juvenile or subadult
of a larger species, why are most of the specimens of this species juveniles
and subadults, throughout all of the Mongolian Upper Cretaceous? How many
juvenile or subadult Tyrannosaurus rex specimens are there in North America?
How about Gorgosaurus, Albertosaurus, and Daspletosaurus?