Re: What are these dinosaurs?

[Dinogeorge@aol.com]

In a message dated 11/16/99 2:55:24 PM EST, tholtz@geol.umd.edu writes:

<< I wonder if Huene's 1926 name Ornithomimidorum is the same type of
 transformation (i.e., a higher level taxon temporarily transformed into a
 genus-like word to label a fragmentary specimen). >>

Here the word Ornithomimidorum goes with the additional nouns "gen. a" and 
"gen. b," to yield the abbreviation phrases "Ornithomimidorum gen. a" and 
"Ornithomimidorum gen. b." These are simply latinizations of "ornithomimid 
genus a" and "ornithomimid genus b," terms that Huene invented to stand for 
generic names he didn't feel like creating. "Ornithomimidorum" is simply the 
latinized genitive plural of "ornithomimid."

Specifically, Huene transferred Megalosaurus lonzeensis to Ornithomimidae as 
Ornithomimidorum gen. a lonzeensis, and Megalosaurus bredai to Ornithomimidae 
as Ornithomimidorum gen. b bredai. Later Kuhn transferred Ornithomimidorum 
gen. a to Ornithomimus itself, as Ornithomimus lonzeensis (where it 
languishes even now, as far as I know), and Huene referred Ornithomimidorum 
gen. b bredai to the new genus Betasuchus as Betasuchus bredai. The "beta" of 
Betasuchus refers, I believe, to the "genus b" of Ornithomimidorum gen. b. 
The material is probably indeterminate, but may be worth looking at. I dimly 
recall a recent paper by Buffetaut(?) that comments on the status of 
Betasuchus as a possible abelisaurid.

These kinds of constructions have no scientific standing and are, I believe, 
presently excluded from scientific nomenclature under a provision of the Code 
that deals with serialized taxon names.