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

Laelaps and Brontosauria (was Re: Resending)

Jaime A. Headden wrote:

As it is, we are still dealing with the synonymy issues
of overabundant naming and name-calling, such as Cure's 2000 paper in _Mesozoic
Vertebrate Life_ dealing with "Laelaps" teeth.

On the _Laelaps_ issue, Marsh would have the last laugh. Cope named _Laelaps_ in 1866. However, the name was taken by a genus of arthropod (_Laelaps_ Koch, 1839) - not an insect (for a change), but a mite. Marsh became aware of this, and politely informed Cope of this issue of priority and gave Cope the opportunityto re-name the genus... Yeah right! Marsh himself re-named the genus in 1877, endowing it with the name _Dryptosaurus_. Cope was reportedly mad as hell, and continued to call "his" dinosaur _Laelaps_. (Apparently Cope argued that _Laelaps_ was available because _Laelaps_ Koch was considered a junior synonym of another mite genus. Even if Cope was right, the rules don't work that way; _Dryptosaurus_ wins out.)

Mike Keesey wrote:

I used it once on the Dinosauricon for the least inclusive clade
containing _sauropoda_ and _Prosauropoda_ sensu Wilson and Sereno,
but, since Wilson and Sereno's definition of _Prosauropoda_ differs
from Olshevsky's more traditional usage of the taxon (especially given
Yates' latest topologies), I later removed it.

However, Brontosauria could be retained for the clade that includes Prosauropoda (sensu stricto; =?Plateosauridae) and Sauropoda (or the more inclusive Anchisauria), but not basal sauropodomorphs (like _Saturnalia_, _Thecodontosaurus_, maybe _Efraasia_). Thus, it would approximate Olshevsky's usage of the term Brontosauria in terms of content.