[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)...
> 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.
How well do you know your celebrity gossip?