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


On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Tim Williams wrote: 
> I'm a little confused.  If _Shastasaurus_ is a _nomen dubium_, why was it 
> included in the analysis?

The type species of Shastasarus, S. pacificus, is a nomen dubium (and
possibly chimaeric with regards to Californosaurus). However, most of the
literature on Shastasaurus (which has given the current conception of the
genus) concerns Shastasaurus alexandrae Merriam 1902. This is indeed a
valid species, and represents the "Shastasaurus" of the
analysis. "S." alexandrae is very probably a junior synonym of
S. pacificus, but because pacificus is such a bad specimen, it isn't known
for sure. Hope that helps.

-Christian Kammerer