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

Re: terminology

Oops, my bad, Matt... I was obviously referring to *Manospondylus*, and not *Dynamosaurus* for which there is no problem.

Worse, I even remember to have read your post on your blog. Seems like I thought (naively !) that the case had been ruled since... We are just waiting for some brave theropodologist.


Le 19/01/2011 01:22, Matthew Martyniuk a Ãcrit :
Just a nitpick (don't want to deviate too far from the topic),
_Dynamosaurus_ was sunk in favor of _Tyrannosaurus_ when Osborn acted
as first revisor and chose the later as the senior synonym, as
required by the ICZN when two synonymous taxa are named in the same
publication. If you meant _Manospondylus_, contrary to popular belief
no ICZN action has ever been taken or requested, nor is the name a
nomen oblitum under the current code. If _M. gigas_ is considered
synonymous with _T. rex_, the former is the correct name. See my post
on this here:



On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:25 PM, Jocelyn Falconnet
<j.falconnet@gmail.com>  wrote:
Fortunately, you have three possibilities if you encounter a nomen
dubium threatening an old-established (='stable') taxonomy:
1) request the deletion of this taxon to the ICZN (e.g.,
*Dynamosaurus*, *Rioarribasaurus colberti*)