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

RE: terminology



  The current opinion is that the holotype of *Manospondylus gigas*, an eroded 
pair of dorsal centra, are similar to that of *Tyrannosaurus rex*, but may also 
compare well to other taxa (*Tarbosaurus bataar*) as well as *Daspletosaurus* 
spp. This makes it difficult to _prove_ that *Tyrannosaurus rex* and 
*Manospondylus gigas* are synonymous. The general consensus (that I am familiar 
with) has been to treat the type as nondiagnostic, and the taxon as a _nomen 
dubium_ (if these things had any value other than justification for not 
considering them useful for competing for priority).

Cheers,

Jaime A. Headden
The Bite Stuff (site v2)
http://qilong.wordpress.com/

"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 
Backs)





----------------------------------------
> Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 04:58:12 -0600
> From: vultur-10@neo.tamu.edu
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: Re: terminology
>
> What do you mean by "If *Manospondylus* and *Manospondylus gigas* ever came 
> up in contention for priority"; are they not in that situation now? By far 
> the most-parsimonious hypothesis is Manospondylus = Tyrannosaurus; and so the 
> correct name is most probably Manospondylus.
>
> Chances are, the issue will simply continue unaddressed.
>
> William Miller
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jaime Headden" 
> To: vultur-10@neo.tamu.edu, "Dinosaur Mailing List" 
> Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 2:41:04 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
> Subject: RE: terminology
>
>
>   If *Manospondylus* and *Manospondylus gigas* ever came up in
> contention for priority over *Tyrannosaurus* and *Tyrannosaurus rex*
> (respectively), you can bet your sweet [arse] that the governing bodies
> of appropriate appeal at the time (ICZN now, maybe PhyloCode as well
> down the road) will be petitioned to set aside the former two names to
> preserve the latter two. The other options available (to ignore as
> useless the former two names, or redesignation of a type specimen and
> thus reorganization of what the former two names refer to) are likely
> and unlikely (respectively) to be employed.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jaime A. Headden
> The Bite Stuff (site v2)
> http://qilong.wordpress.com/
>
> "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 
> Backs)
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------
> > Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 01:24:39 -0600
> > From: vultur-10@neo.tamu.edu
> > To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> > Subject: Re: terminology
> >
> > As for Manospondylus = Tyrannosaurus, the criteria seem to have been met -- 
> > at least I can't find anything after 1901 treating Manospondylus as valid*, 
> > and cetainly Tyrannosaurus has been used far more than 25 times in the past 
> > 50 years -- but something needs to be published saying so, and it hasn't.
> >
> > *Edward Troxell's 1921 paper "The Nature of a Species in Paleontology, and 
> > a New Kind of Type Specimen" comes close, since he recognizes Manospondylus 
> > = Tyrannosaurus and that M. was first, but he seems to say that 
> > Tyrannosaurus is the right name and that the principle of replacing names 
> > based on scrappy bones with those based on good remains should be generally 
> > applied.
> >
> > William Miller
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Matthew Martyniuk"
> > To: "j falconnet"
> > Cc: "Dinosaur Mailing List"
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 6:22:06 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
> > Subject: Re: terminology
> >
> > Just a nitpick (don't want to deviate too far from the topic),
> > _Dynamosaurus_ was sunk in favor of _Tyrannosaurus_ when Osborn acted
> > as first revisor and chose the later as the senior synonym, as
> > required by the ICZN when two synonymous taxa are named in the same
> > publication. If you meant _Manospondylus_, contrary to popular belief
> > no ICZN action has ever been taken or requested, nor is the name a
> > nomen oblitum under the current code. If _M. gigas_ is considered
> > synonymous with _T. rex_, the former is the correct name. See my post
> > on this here:
> >
> > http://dinogoss.blogspot.com/2010/09/what-is-nomen-oblitum-not-what-you.html
> >
> > Matt
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:25 PM, Jocelyn Falconnet
> > wrote:
> > > Fortunately, you have three possibilities if you encounter a nomen
> > > dubium threatening an old-established (='stable') taxonomy:
> > > 1) request the deletion of this taxon to the ICZN (e.g.,
> > > *Dynamosaurus*, *Rioarribasaurus colberti*)
>