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

Re: Name priorities



Manospondylus gigas counts as a Nomen oblitem under article 23.9
"reversal of precedence", and Tyrannosaurus rex has been protected
(nomen protectum).  In order to be protected, it must fulfill two
criteria:

"23.9.1.1 the senior synonym or homonym has not been used as a valid
name after 1899, and

23.9.1.2. the junior synonym or homonym has been used for a particular
taxon, as its presumed valid name, in at least 25 works, published by
at least 10 authors in the immediately preceding 50 years and
encompassing a span of not less than 10 years."

http://www.iczn.org/iczn/index.jsp?article=23&nfv=#9

I don't rea

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

While reviewing a list of dinosaur  species names, I found a number of
occurrences where older specific names were  apparently sunk into newer ones, 
which,
unless I am quite astray, is in  violation of one of the most fundamental
ICZN rules. Yet authoritative works  like The Dinosauria II, to cite only one,
tend to accept some of these  referrals.
Just two examples:
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?
2) Thescelosaurus  garbanii (Morris 1976) sunk into Bugenasaura infernalis
(Galton 1995). If the T.  garbanii material is diagnostic, why is it not
Bugenasaura garbanii?
Have I  missed some important taxonomic principle here?

Thanks in  advance,

Félix Landry
150 rue de Vaugirard 75015 Paris, France
01  45 67 04 65 / 06 26 39 29 03
flxlandry@aol.com
Elève de l'Ecole normale  supérieure, département de Sciences sociales
45 rue d'Ulm 75005 Paris, France