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

Re: [dinosaur] Latenivenatrix, new troodontid from Dinosaur Park Formation, Alberta (validity of Troodon)

That said, had Russell not made the case for "Tyrannosauridae" back in 1970, Deinodontidae might well still be used. It was certainly being used by many prominent paleontologists around the world in the early 20th Century (such as Matthew and Brown) and by Russians even into the early 1970s.
Oh. I had thought Deinodontidae was a nomen oblitum, but it's clearly not:

23.9. Reversal of precedence. In accordance with the purpose of the Principle of Priority [Art. 23.2], its application is moderated as follows:

23.9.1. prevailing usage must be maintained when the following conditions are both met: the senior synonym or homonym has not been used as a valid name after 1899, and the junior synonym or homonym has been used for a particular taxon, as its presumed valid name, in at least 25 works, published by at least 10 authors in the immediately preceding 50 years and encompassing a span of not less than 10 years.

Tyrannosauridae obviously fulfills, but Deinodontidae doesn't fulfill, so it isn't a nomen oblitum, and the following kicks in:

23.9.3. If the conditions of 23.9.1 are not met but nevertheless an author considers that the use of the older synonym or homonym would threaten stability or universality or cause confusion, and so wishes to maintain use of the younger synonym or homonym, he or she must [!] refer the matter to the Commission for a ruling under the plenary power [Art. 81]. While the case is under consideration use of the junior name is to be maintained [Art. 82].

Somebody should submit such a petition, then. I'm sure it would be granted quickly.