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

Re: Name priorities



On 4/11/07, FlxLandry@aol.com <FlxLandry@aol.com> wrote:

1) Manospondylys gigas (Cope 1892) sunk into Tyrannosaurus rex (Osborn 1905). I suppose M. gigas is strictly speaking a nomen dubium. If it is diagnostic and conspecific with T. rex, the only way to save the name T. rex is to petition the ICZN, etc. Has it been done? Or is this referral just another example of floppy systematics?

IIRC, if a name is not used in the literature for 50 years, it becomes a nomen oblitum (forgotten name) and can be preempted by a younger, more popular name. _Tyrannosaurus rex_ is a nomen conservandum (conserved name).

BTW, technically, when citing species, you're only supposed to put the
original citation in parentheses if its not the original combination.
E.g., _Homo troglodytes_ Linnaeus 1758 but _Pan troglodytes_ (Linnaeus
1758) Blumenbach 1775.

2) Thescelosaurus  garbanii (Morris 1976) sunk into Bugenasaura infernalis
(Galton 1995). If the T.  garbanii material is diagnostic, why is it not
Bugenasaura garbanii?

You are correct that if the two species are synonymized and considered to represent a distinct genus, the name should be _Bugenasaura garbanii_ (Morris 1976) Galton 1995.

--
Mike Keesey