[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: VERY Stupid question, but I dont know the answer...
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Williams, Tim wrote:
> _Deinodon horridus_ Leidy 1856 is based on indeterminate teeth, and so is a
> _nomen dubium_. Hence, the family Deinodontidae is "fruit of the poisonous
> tree", and cannot be considered a valid name either. Tyrannosauridae Osborn
> 1905 is therefore the first available name for the family containing
> _Tyrannosaurus_ and its close relatives.
Designation of _nomen dubium_ is a subjective decision, and hence cannot
be used to invalidate a name. As you note, Ceratopsidae, Hadrosauridae,
and Titanosauridae are all in use, despite the eponymous genera usually
being considered dubious.
> Hopefully PhyloCode will sort all this out.
T. MICHAEL KEESEY
The Dinosauricon <http://dinosauricon.com>
personal <email@example.com> --> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
AOL Instant Messenger <Ric Blayze>
Yahoo! Messenger <Mighty Odinn>