[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: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of
> Rob Gay
> Waylon D. Rowley wrote:
> Check out this link:
> 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
> _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
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.
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): 301-405-0796