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

RE: Colorful Coloradisaurus (was RE: your first paleo book was:)

Darn, the quote disappeared from my message...  Here it is again.  Apologies 
for the re-posting, waste of bandwidth, etc...

> Justin Tweet wrote:
>> Just checked my copy, and although it doesn't directly *state* that 
>> *Coloradisaurus* is intended to replace
>> *Coloradia*, the index does have *Coloradia*=*Coloradisaurus*.
> Yes, that's exactly what I recalled - thanks for the confirmation. Because it 
> was a popular dinosaur book (not 
> a scientific text) there was no mention of "_Coloradisaurus_ Bonaparte", such 
> that the genus could now be 
> referred to as "_Coloradisaurus_ Bonaparte vide Lambert, 1983". The book 
> featured the name 
> Coloradisaurus_ in the main body of the book, and 
> "_Coloradia_=_Coloradisaurus_ in the index at the back 
> of the book. The fact that _Coloradisaurus_ was intended as a replacement 
> name for the preoccupied 
> _Coloradia_ was never made explicit - because Lambert had assumed that it had 
> already been officially re-
> named by Bonaparte. Apparently, it was an innocent mistake on Lambert's part.
> This is from Lambert himself (though it's second-hand, so I can't personally 
> vouch for its accuracy)...
> (http://www.wordquests.info/cgi/ice2-for.cgi?file=/hsphere/local/home/scribejo/wordquests.info/htm/L-Gk-
> sauro-B-C.htm&HIGHLIGHT=sauro)
> In a message from David Lambert on February 6, 2000; he wrote, “I named it in 
> The Collins Guide to 
> Dinosaurs (UK), published as The Field Guide to Dinosaursin the USA, after 
> Dr. José Bonaparte in Argentina 
> had written answering my inquiry about Argentinian dinosaur discoveries. He 
> had formally published it under 
> the name Coloradia, but told me the name was now Coloradisaurus as he had 
> found that another animal 
> already bore the name Coloradia. I published the new name assuming he had 
> done so already, but it seems 
> he had not. As I named only the genus, not the species, I think I don’t count 
> for ICZN purposes, though my 
> name turns up for this dinosaur in various references.”
> Prior to the previous message, on February 4, 2000; Mr. Lambert wrote, “This 
> beast embarrasses me. When I 
> was compiling a dinosaur book Bonaparte told me its original name Coloradia 
> turned out to be preoccupied 
>(by a beetle) so it is now Coloradisaurus. It appears my book was the first to 
>say this in print. Any other>dinosaurs my name is attached to in George 
>Olshevsky’s listings, are informal names of (I believe still) 
> undescribed Japanese dinosaurs.”
> Overall, this seems to be correct, except that: (a) Olshevsky's list is 
> perhaps not the best arbiter of a genus's 
> validity (it's been wrong before); and on a purely pedantic note, (b) 
> _Coloradia_ Blake, 1863 is a genus of 
> moth, not beetle.
> David Marjanovic wrote:
>> Really? Does he make clear enough that it's a replacement name for
>> *Coloradia* Bonaparte?
> No. (See above.) _Coloradisaurus_ Lambert appears to meet ICZN criteria (or 
> at least it doesn't contravene 
> Article 60 of the Code). Further, if you're implying that David Lambert 
> didn't actually officially re-name 
> _Coloradia_, he would seem to agree with you on that point, based on the 
> above quote. But the fact that 
> Lambert didn't *intend* to erect the name _Coloradisaurus_ has no bearing on 
> this situation; he named it 
> nonetheless. In any case, the attribution of the name _Coloradisaurus_ to 
> Lambert appears to have 'stuck', 
> and I'm not aware of any attempt to overturn the name (by Bonaparte, or 
> anyone else) in the past 25 years. 
> It'd be interesting to know who was the first reviewer in this case.
> Cheers
> Tim

How well do you know your celebrity gossip?