[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 <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com>
Reply-To: mickey_mortimer111@msn.com
To: dinosaur@usc.edu
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...