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

Re: Typical and less typical types




On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 09:36:58 +1200 Christopher Taylor
<ck.taylor@auckland.ac.nz> writes:
>If I was to decide that _Antrodemus 
> valens_
> definitely came from the same species as _Allosaurus fragilis_ (as 
> some
> people did for a while), I would *have* to use the name _Antrodemus 
> valens_,
> because it was named first (I think :-) ). I couldn't continue to 
> use
> _Allosaurus fragilis_ on the basis that _A. valens_ was based on 
> shonky
> material. We still use _Allosaurus fragilis_ because we *can't* be 
> certain
> that the two are, in fact, the same species.


What about the so-called "50-year rule"?  _Allosaurus fragilis_ has been
used almost exclusively in the scientific literature for the last 50
years.  IF the two were ever unambiguously found to be the same species
(doubtful, considering the material in the _A. valens_ type), I suspect
that the name _Allosaurus fragilis_ would still be retained, even though
_Antrodemus. valens_, presently a nomen dubium, has publication date
priority.

Or am I missing a fine point somewhere?


> Cheers, and hope that all this doesn't
> confuse everyone too much,


Speaking as a member of the Peanut Gallery, I think the jury is still out
on deciding how confused we are.  ;-)


<pb>
--







________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!