[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 <sappororaptor@yahoo.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 keesey@gmail.com 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.