[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.