[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Chaoyangsaurus (was RE: Me vs. Makovicky et al.- comparison and consensus)
From: Michael Mortimer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: RE: Me vs. Makovicky et al.- comparison and consensus
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 21:56:39 +0000
Regarding "Alashansaurus", it's been published in Glut (2003). The latter
isn't available for taxonomic purposes, as it includes a disclaimer, so
it's still a nomen nudum. Much as with Enigmosauria, I view taxonomy based
on what's published. In this case, Glut even intended to publish it, as he
notes it's from a thesis. Is it regrettable that he published it before
Chure? Perhaps, though being a published nomen nudum certainly didn't hurt
Chaoyangsaurus (and that was for over fifteen years!).
Except for the fact that you still occasionally see the alternate spelling
"Chaoyangosaurus" in technical papers...