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

Invalid names (was RE: Physiological Adaptations of the Dinosauria (long))

> From: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu [mailto:owner-dinosaur@usc.edu]On Behalf Of
> Rob Gay
> Waylon D. Rowley wrote:
> Check out this link:
> http://dinosauricon.com/images/dilophosaurus-am.html
> Since I lack any knowledge of D. breedorums crest height, length,
> and width, I opted for ?D. sinensis for which I have seen pictures of at
> least.<
> _Dilophosaurus breedorum_ is conisdered by some (Myself included) to
> represent a gender difference in _D. wetherilli_, and not a seperate
> species. UCMP 37302 (the type for _D. wetherilli_) does not preserve the
> crests.


In point of fact, I can't find a single professional paleontologist who
considers the name "_Dilophosaurus breedorum_" as a valid name.  The
document in which it was named is a bizarre newsletter; the author has not
(to anyone's knoweldge) ever studied the matierial in person; and but for
the introduction of this name on certain newsgroups (:-) and websites would
be unknown to people outside the small select few who received the
newsletter in question in the mail.

Does anyone here know of any professional paper using "_D. breedorum_"?  The
specimen in question is considered in every tech paper I know of as being
part of the _Dilophosaurus wetherilli_ hypodigm.

Incidentally, I don't know (nor have any confirmation) that Welles ever
authorized the use of the names listed in the Pickering newsletter.

                Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
                Vertebrate Paleontologist
Department of Geology           Director, Earth, Life & Time Program
University of Maryland          College Park Scholars
                College Park, MD  20742
Phone:  301-405-4084    Email:  tholtz@geol.umd.edu
Fax (Geol):  301-314-9661       Fax (CPS-ELT): 301-405-0796