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

Re: Validity of *Tyrannosaurus stanwinstonorum* Pickering (1996)

Jaime Headden wrote-

>   In Glut (1997; _Dinosaurs: the Encyclopedia_), pg. 954, Don cites a
> figure SDSMT 12047, a *Tyrannosaurus rex*, as having a referral to the
> hypodigm of the species Pickering named *T. "stanwinstonorus"*, and
> included in the caption to this figure Pickering's diagnosis, a referal to
> the original citation, and a listing of the hypodigm, in connection with
> the figure. Given the ICZN, 3rd. ed., Art. 19, as in the 4th edition, it
> is possible to supplement an original mention, if published, by citing it
> further with additional information, and though this may not pertain
> unless Pickering's work is considered valid under the ICZN, Glut's
> publication apparently is valid. Gult provided all of Pickering's info
> that satisfies Art. 19's rules on naming a species, making Glut's name
> valid, even if Pickering's was not, and the citation would be:
>   *Tyrannosaurus* Osborn, 1905
>     *T. stanwinstonorus* Pickering (1996) _vide_ Glut, 1997
>       (= *T. rex* Osborn, 1905, _sensu_ Glut, 1997)

Not only that, Glut (1997) uses Allosaurus whitei, another prior nomen nudum
from the same publication of Pickering's.  The caption (pg. 106) contains a
photographed and listed hypodigm, diagnosis and reference to Pickering's
work.  Amusingly, the skeleton listed as beng the basis of A. whitei (AMNH
5753) is mispelled (as AMNH 4753), and was only the topotype of A. whitei in
Pickering's original description.  Pickering's orginal holotype was AMNH
666.  Also, AMNH 5753 can't be a topotype of a taxon based on AMNH 666
because they are from different localities, which defies the definition of a
topotype.  So whitei gets to be official, though based on a different
holotype than intended.  It is, of course, a junior synonym of A. fragilis
anyway (Chure, 2000).

So, are A. whitei and T. stanwinstonorus actually validly named, or are
Jaime and I missing some loophole in the ICZN?

Mickey Mortimer