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

Re: Javelina Hadrosaurs [was: Re: Hadrosaurs etc]



In a message dated 11/4/02 5:43:31 PM EST, jonathan.r.wagner@mail.utexas.edu 
writes:

<< Lastly, a minor quibble: lambeosaurINE and hadrosaurINE are the preferred
 terms. AFAIK, no one is using Horner's exclusive, "family"-rank distinction
 of Lambeosauridae vs. Hadrosauridae. Hadrosauridae has almost invariably
 included "lambeys." >>

As you might expect, >I< perversely use Lambeosauridae and Hadrosauridae 
rather than Lambeosaurinae and Hadrosaurinae, as subgroups of a more 
inclusive Hadrosauria. Since rank is entirely arbitrary, it really makes 
little difference which way one does it, but family-level gives a little more 
room at the bottom for "subfamilies" such as Saurolophinae, Gryposaurinae, 
Lambeosaurinae (for Corythosaurus, Lambeosaurus, and Hypacrosaurus), 
Parasaurolophinae (for Parasaurolophus and Charonosaurus, and perhaps 
Tsintaosaurus and Bactrosaurus), and Hadrosaurinae (restricted to the nomen 
dubium Hadrosaurus right now: painful but Hadrosaurus as a nomen dubium 
renders the same courtesy to Hadrosaurinae and Hadrosauridae; next available 
name for the group customarily known as Hadrosaurinae would be Saurolophinae).

Another hadrosaurian problem is the name Procheneosaurus, which was conserved 
by the ICZN back in the middle of the 20th century (over Tetragonosaurus). If 
Dodson is correct and the type specimen of Procheneosaurus praeceps is a 
juvenile Lambeosaurus lambei, then Procheneosaurus must take priority over 
Lambeosaurus, and the type species of Procheneosaurus becomes Procheneosaurus 
lambei (note that the species epithet lambei has priority over the species 
epithet praeceps, even though the generic names are the other way). Even 
though Lambeosaurus would sink as a junior synonym, the names Lambeosaurinae 
and Lambeosauridae would remain in use (synonymy of a genus doesn't 
invalidate its family-level names, if any).