[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Me vs. Makovicky et al.- comparison and consensus
Jay <email@example.com> wrote:
The original species 'Coloradi' brevis was published with description and
diagnosis, so that
doesn't matter. The fact is that Coloradisaurus is simply a replacement
name. We have replacement
names for preoccupied genera all published formally all the time WITHOUT
diagnosis - the authors
simply needs to refer to the original paper to diagnoses. For example look
at the Chatterjee &
Creisler paper (1991) renaming Alwalkeria & Morturneria. All the authors
needed to do here was
adjust their etymologies.
Exactly right. _Coloradisaurus_ was just a re-naming of the prosauropod
genus _Coloradia_, which was pre-occupied (by a genus of moth). _Coloradia_
(the prosauropod) was named and described, so a new description was not
necessary for _Coloradisaurus_. The sauropod genus _Protognathus_ (also
preoccupied) was re-named _Protognathosaurus_ in a similar way, by Olshevsky
(1991). This needs to be done for the theropod genus _Ingenia_, and
Barsbold gets first bite of the apple. _Syntarsus_ has already been taken
care of (although not in ideal fashion; still, _Megapnosaurus_ stands).
BTW, as Trevor alluded too (I think), Lambert is not at all at fault. He
didn't mean to 'scoop' Bonaparte (who came up with the name
_Coloradisaurus_), and indeed checked with Jose before putting the name
_Coloradisaurus_ in his dinosaur book. Thus, Lambert (1983) published
_Coloradisaurus_ in the belief (mistaken, as it turned out) that Bonaparte
had already named _Coloradisaurus_ in print. 22 years of practice have
established _Coloradisaurus_ Lambert as valid. But I wonder if this sort of
thing happened today if things would go do smoothly...
Anyway, the _Coloradisaurus_ situation is different to the
_"Chilantaisaurus" maortuensis_ case, in which the new genus requires a
description (i.e., a diagnosis) in order to be valid.
T. Michael Keesey firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Moral of the story: use species or specimens as specifiers, not
supraspecific taxa. (Now repeat ten times quickly!)
Taylor and Naish (2005) also made this recommendation. It's a good idea.