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

RE: Diceratops

Not a nomen nudum (assuming the name was defined correctly, which in
this case would only require specifying that it was a replacement name
for _Ceratops_ Marsh), but it would be an unnecessary emendation.
According to Article 33.2.3 unjustified emendations do count as
available names, and do compete for priority. _Proceratops_ would
therefore be preoccupied for any genus named after _Proceratops_ Lull.
The names _Eucentrosaurus_ (for _Centrosaurus_) and _Kentrurosaurus_ and
_Doryphorosaurus_ (for _Kentrosaurus_) come under the same ruling.
Incidentally, _Doryphorosaurus_ is listed by Nomenclator Zoologicus but
_Kentrurosaurus_ isn't.



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu [mailto:owner-dinosaur@usc.edu] On Behalf
Of Jaime A. Headden
Sent: Friday, 13 January 2006 7:39 PM
To: dinosaur@usc.edu
Cc: gerarus@westnet.com.au
Subject: RE: Diceratops

  Using Chris' helpful link, I also found that Rafinesque named a
*Ceratops* as
a nomen nudum in 1815, before Marsh's name *Ceratops montanus*. But of
nomina nuda do not compete for priority.  Lull apparently recognized
this and
renamed it *Proceratops montanus*, but this is also a nomen nudum? 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/228 - Release Date: