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

Re: Typical and less typical types

Phil Bigelow (bigelowp@juno.com) wrote:

<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

  This is a reference to the ICZN's _nomen oblitum_ rule; that a name, if
not used formally or descriptively, or to reference a (at the time)
considered valid taxon, would be considered a "forgotten name" if this
lack of use proceeds for 50 years. Established duration of valid use has
no effect on terminology except to regard historic usage. A name is still
"forgotten" even if it's used to reference a synonymy, as long as that
name is not considered "viable" or "valid" as it is used. *Manospondylus
gigas,* though almost certainly pertaining to a tyrannosaur and likely
*Tyrannosaurus rex* itself, remained out of use for a good deal longer
than 50 years, not requiring anyone to "establish" it as a _nomen dubium_,
which would then be rejected from the formal literature; instead, this
name for an eroded dorsal centrum has simply passed out of the annals of
history as one of Cope's curiousities, the true first discoverer of [what
would later be known as] *Tyrannosaurus.*


Jaime A. Headden

  Little steps are often the hardest to take.  We are too used to making leaps 
in the face of adversity, that a simple skip is so hard to do.  We should all 
learn to walk soft, walk small, see the world around us rather than zoom by it.

"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)

Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!