[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: On naming taxa
George Olshevsky (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
<The species Iguanodon exogyrarum was made the type species of
the new genus Procerosaurus by Fritsch in 1905. Procerosaurus,
however, is preoccupied by Procerosaurus Von Huene 1902, and
this situation cannot stand according to ICZN rules. A suitable
genus >must< be created or substituted for the preoccupied
genus, and Iguanodon is not suitable. Whether the type species
is a nomen dubium is not a >nomenclatural< problem, which the
generic name Ponerosteus corrects.>
I believe the ICZN requires that a differential diagnosis be
provided upon wide-distribution of a publication describing a
taxon which can be readily provided by the publisher; the first
part is readily relevant, as the type is an endocast: how does
this endocast of a long-bone (tibia?) differ from other taxa? It
could very well be *Iguanodon*....
Making a name for what is essentially garbage is like saying
its okay to make names for fossil material that cannot in anyway
carry diagnostic references and be distinguished -- or referred
-- to/from any other taxa. I may be wrong, but the reason some
taxa have the term _nomen dubium_ attached to them is because of
the lack of any means of differentiation. *Prodeinodon* is a
good example.... Mickey Mortimer recent wrote on Panteleyev's
most recent fossil birds based for the most part on coracoid _fragments_.
Jaime A. Headden
Where the Wind Comes Sweeping Down the Pampas!!!!
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices