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

Re: di-NO!-tyrannus

Dinogeorge@aol.com wrote:

I would strongly disagree(!) with making Daspletosaurus and Tarbosaurus subgenera of Tyrannosaurus.

I have to agree with George here. In general, I think erecting subgenera is bad policy for fossil taxa; if a species is good enough to be a subgenus, why not go the whole hog and give it its own genus?

Of course, it all comes down to how finely calibrated your "generico-meter" is, but _Daspletosaurus_ and _Tarbosaurus_ look like "good" genera to me. On a subjective note, I wouldn't be sad to see _Jenghizkhan_ resurrected as a genus, since it's a darn cool name IMHO, especially when juxtaposed with _bataar_. In the same vein, I despised the name _Dinotyrannus_. (Terrible tyrant??!! Is there any other kind of tyrant?)



MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus