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

Re: Question for the pterosaur set...



There are definite shades of 'Aetogate' in this situation. Kellner and Campos 
likely knew of Unwin et al.'s intention of publishing this name beforehand and 
published anyway. Unfortunately, saving Ingridia at this point can only be done 
with a petition to the ICZN, and it seems that is an action most people are 
reluctant to do, no matter how well justified.

Rob Taylor wrote:
> This led me first to the Wiki page on Tupandactylus, and then to Darren 
> Naish's recent posting at Tetrapod Zoology, which explains all:
> http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2008/01/crato_formation_tapejarids.php
>
> Bit of a messy situation, this. I rather hope (as Darren suggests could 
> happen) that both names ultimately come to represent two valid and distinct 
> taxa.Seems a shame that Ingridia had to be sunk right out of the gate.
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Marjanovic" 
> <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>
> To: "DML" <dinosaur@usc.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 8:46 PM
> Subject: Re: Question for the pterosaur set...
>
>
>>> Ingridia Unwin & Martill, 2007 (junior subjective synonym, =Tupandactylus 
>>> Kellner & Campos, 2007)
>>
>> Objective, not subjective, because both have the same type species.
>>
>> Unfortunately.
>>
>
>
>