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

Re: New papers in Geobios (and nomenclatoral gripe)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Williams" <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 4:21 PM

The only way to bypass this situation is to designate a new type species, as
was done with _Iguanodon_. The original type species (_I. anglicus_) was a
nomen dubium, which technically made _Iguanodon_ a nome dubium too. But
the ICZN allowed a new type species to be designated (_I. bernissartensis_),
which 'rescued' the genus _Iguanodon_ from oblivion. If your premise was
correct (i.e., a genus is valid even if the type species is specifically
non-diagnostic), then we would not have had to go to all this trouble for

No, this is not the same situation. The problem with *Iguanodon* was that there was no way to tell whether *I. anglicus* belonged to the same genus as *I. bernissartensis* and *I. atherfieldensis*. In other words, there was a risk that the latter two species, which had made a substantial career under the name *Iguanodon*, could end up not belonging to *Iguanodon*. To avert this risk the ICZN designated *I. bernissartensis* as the neotype of *Iguanodon*.

Same with *Coelophysis*: there was a risk that the Ghost Ranch specimens could end up not belonging to *Coelophysis*.