Re: Name priorities

[Sam Barnett <sam.horus@gmail.com>]

Manospondylus gigas counts as a Nomen oblitem under article 23.9
"reversal of precedence", and Tyrannosaurus rex has been protected
(nomen protectum).  In order to be protected, it must fulfill two
criteria:

"23.9.1.1 the senior synonym or homonym has not been used as a valid
name after 1899, and

23.9.1.2. 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."

http://www.iczn.org/iczn/index.jsp?article=23&nfv=#9

I don't rea

On 4/11/07, FlxLandry@aol.com <FlxLandry@aol.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> While reviewing a list of dinosaur  species names, I found a number of
> occurrences where older specific names were  apparently sunk into newer ones, 
> which,
> unless I am quite astray, is in  violation of one of the most fundamental
> ICZN rules. Yet authoritative works  like The Dinosauria II, to cite only one,
> tend to accept some of these  referrals.
> Just two examples:
> 1) Manospondylys gigas (Cope 1892) sunk  into Tyrannosaurus rex (Osborn
> 1905). I suppose M. gigas is strictly speaking a  nomen dubium. If it is 
> diagnostic
> and conspecific with T. rex, the only way to  save the name T. rex is to
> petition the ICZN, etc. Has it been done? Or is this  referral just another
> example of floppy systematics?
> 2) Thescelosaurus  garbanii (Morris 1976) sunk into Bugenasaura infernalis
> (Galton 1995). If the T.  garbanii material is diagnostic, why is it not
> Bugenasaura garbanii?
> Have I  missed some important taxonomic principle here?
>
> Thanks in  advance,
>
> Félix Landry
> 150 rue de Vaugirard 75015 Paris, France
> 01  45 67 04 65 / 06 26 39 29 03
> flxlandry@aol.com
> Elève de l'Ecole normale  supérieure, département de Sciences sociales
> 45 rue d'Ulm 75005 Paris, France