[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: dracrorex and National Geographic
----- Original Message ----
From: T. Michael Keesey <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Dinosaur Mailing List <email@example.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 4 December, 2007 9:42:21 AM
Subject: Re: dracrorex and National Geographic
On Dec 4, 2007 8:33 AM, Mike Taylor <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> As I recall that talk, it made it pretty convincing case that
> Dracrorex and Stygiomoloch are juveniles, but didn't lay out case
> what they're juveniles _of_ is Pachycephalosaurus. So it's still
> possible that the Dracrorex holotype is a juvenile Dracrorex.
>Or, perhaps, _Pachycephalosaurus hogwartsia_.
Well.. the nodes are identical in arrangement, and dracorex, stygimoloch, and
pachycephalosaurus are all <most likely> from the same stratigraphic interval.
Dracorex and stygimoloch are both non-mature.. which raises the question as to
whether you can erect a taxon based on immature specimens. What happens if a
taxon is first defined on a juvenile, then an adult morph is found, with quite
different morphology... do you change the holotype to the adult but keep the
"juvenile name"? or do you sink the juvenile (yet senior) name into the adult
I guess an example would be if stygimoloch was described before
pachycephalosaurus. If stygi turned out to be pachy, which name gets priority?
the first named, or the adult morph?
Sent from Yahoo! - the World's favourite mail http://uk.mail.yahoo.com