[Previous by date - Fwd: Re: New Dinosauricon Taxon Pages: _Therizinosauria_]
[Next by date - Re: New Dinosauricon Taxon Pages: _Therizinosauria_]
[Previous by subject - Re: New Dinosauricon Taxon Pages: _Therizinosauria_]
[Next by subject - Re: New Dinosauricon Taxon Pages: _Therizinosauria_]
Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 13:05:08 +0100
From: David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>
To: DML <dinosaur@usc.edu>, PML <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Re: New Dinosauricon Taxon Pages: _Therizinosauria_
Sorry for the cross-posting... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jaime A. Headden" <qilongia@yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2003 7:30 AM > [...] the oldest > names that separate it from *Tyrannosaurus rex* are *Tarbosaurus* > and *bataar*; *efremovi* is a junior variant of *bataar* and this the rule > applies to pterosaurs. [...] There is one reason, then, why I support use > of *Megapnosaurus* (as validly named, if not in all ethics [?] supportable > for aesthetic reasons) for *rhodesiensis* versus *bauri*; similarly, > *baldwini* and *kayentakatae* are different and cannot be referred to > any of the other species, su should be distinguished as such. So in short you argue for a unique "nomen primum" (called praenomen by Flynn et al.) for every species? Maybe not a bad idea. Except maybe for the flood of new names that will sweep over the insects. Or the plants: the genus *Ficus* has 800 species...