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

Re: Is Kayentavenator a tetanurine or a juvenile kayentakatae?

No to reignite the gasoline, but the discussion wasn't about an unorthodox method of publication but about how the name is not validly created. I would suggest that discussion about the material should either refer to the material by specimen number or with quotation marks around "Kayentavenator" and not italicize it. I don't believe it can synonymized with any other taxon because the name is not valid. To me, the name can simply be ignored.

Whoops, there goes the gas .............


On 10/1/2010 4:51 PM, Michael Mortimer wrote:
Back in June when Rob Gay published his Kayentavenator description, the DML was busy discussing its 
unorthodox method of publication.  Rob quite fairly asked "Anyone want to talk about the 
papers themselves?"  At my blog I've written two posts that discuss the substance of the 
Kayentavenator paper.  The first evaluates his claim Kayentavenator belongs to Tetanurae and is 
different from coelophysoids.  The second discusses the possibility Kayentavenator is a young 
individual of "Megapnosaurus" kayentakatae, as it was originally thought to be.



Mickey Mortimer