[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?
Well, if it is not published according to the Code, it can indeed not
be synonymized. But it does not preclude its chresonymization.
Also, Mike, I see you used quotation marks for *Megapnosaurus* in
*Megapnosaurus kayentakatae*. Is there now a consensus regarding
coelophysoid interrelationships, or is the coelophysoid taxonomy as
debated as ever, notably regarding the *C. bauri* / *M. rhodesiensis*
PS: +1 for succeeding in using *chresonymization*.
2010/10/2 Dan Chure <email@example.com>:
> 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