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

Re: terminology

EDIT: Crud. It *has* been used as valid since 1901, at least it sure looks like 
it - "The Ceratopsia" by Osborn, Hatcher and Marsh sure seems to treat it as a 
valid genus. (It is in the section on 'eliminated genera', but this means 'not 
ceratopsian' -- the entry points out that it's a theropod, and compares it to 
Dryptosaurus -- no aspersion is cast on its validity (it isn't even said to be 

So unless I'm missing something important, Tyrannosaurus is sunk barring an act 
of ICZN.

William Miller
----- Original Message -----
From: vultur-10@neo.tamu.edu
To: "dinosaur" <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 1:24:39 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: Re: terminology

As for Manospondylus = Tyrannosaurus, the criteria seem to have been met -- at 
least I can't find anything after 1901 treating Manospondylus as valid*, and 
cetainly Tyrannosaurus has been used far more than 25 times in the past 50 
years -- but something needs to be published saying so, and it hasn't.

*Edward Troxell's 1921 paper "The Nature of a Species in Paleontology, and a 
New Kind of Type Specimen" comes close, since he recognizes Manospondylus = 
Tyrannosaurus and that M. was first, but he seems to say that Tyrannosaurus is 
the right name and that the principle of replacing names based on scrappy bones 
with those based on good remains should be generally applied.

William Miller
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Martyniuk" <martyniuk@gmail.com>
To: "j falconnet" <j.falconnet@gmail.com>
Cc: "Dinosaur Mailing List" <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 6:22:06 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: Re: terminology

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*)