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

RE: Tarbosaurus?

At 02:03 PM 7/20/00 -0400, T. Mike Keesey wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2000, Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. wrote:

> So, given this, [That _T. efremovi_ is a subadult of _T. bataar_]
> there are two choices: call it _Tyrannosaurus bataar_ or call it
> _Tarbosaurus bataar_.

Since _Tarbosaurus efremovi_ is the type species of _Tarbosaurus_, sinking
it into _T. bataar_ would sink the genus _Tarbosaurus_ along with it,
wouldn't it?

No, it just makes _T. bataar_ the (subjective) type species of _Tarbosaurus_.

_T. bataar_ was made the type species of _Jenghizkhan_, so I would think
if you wanted to synonymize the two Asian species *and* put them in a
separate genus from the North American species, you'd have _Jenghizkhan
bataar_ and _Tyrannosaurus rex_.

Or have I gotten the rules wrong?

The latter. With one Asian species not in _Tyrannosaurus_, you get _Tarbosaurus_ as the oldest available genus name.

May the peace of God be with you.         sarima@ix.netcom.com