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

RE: Dollodon status questioned

  If we were to regard the historical use of "nomen dubium" as excluding 
synonmies, then yes, I would agree with this. It is one of my "hard and fast 
rules" for nomina dubia (see 
http://qilong.wordpress.com/2010/05/25/what-if-anything-is-a-nomen-dubium/) ... 
but that's only if there was a possibility of this concept to being concrete. 
It isn't.

  I wonder if McDonald uses some more substantive reasoning (optimistically, I 
assume he does) than in the abstract -- which is, let's face it, an abstract. I 
haven't the paper, but will soon.


Jaime A. Headden
The Bite Stuff (site v2)

"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)

"Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a
different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race
has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or
his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a Billion 

> Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 23:51:41 -0700
> From: mickey_mortimer111@msn.com
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: RE: Dollodon status questioned
> >From McDonald's (2011) abstract...
> "Firsthand examination of the holotypes of the two taxa and numerous other 
> basal iguanodont specimens, as well as a principal components analysis of 
> basal iguanodont dentaries, did not find any morphological features to 
> justify the distinction of Dollodon from Mantellisaurus. Dollodon bampingi is 
> thus best considered a nomen dubium and junior synonym of Mantellisaurus 
> atherfieldensis."
> I have no opinion of the validity of Dollodon, but people have to learn what 
> nomen dubium means. Dollodon can be a junior synonym of Mantellisaurus or it 
> can be a nomen dubium, but it can't be both.
> /rant
> Mickey Mortimer