Re THE POLACANTHID CONTROVERSY

[Bill Adlam <bill.adlam@st-peters.oxford.ac.uk>]

On Thu, 11 May 1995, D.W.Naish wrote:

> [Are 'hoplites' something to do with ancient Greek armies? George...?]

Yes, they are the chaps who used to line up in enormous phalanges.

> that Polacanthidae would have family name priority as it was originally 
> proposed, regardless of generic priority within the family. On an interesting
> diversion, the family Tyrannosauridae should really be called Deinodontidae 
> for
> the same reason, and likewise Dinosauria should be called Pachypoda. But 
> there's
> some rule stating that when a name becomes so forgotten and superseded by a 
> more
> popular term, it can be forgotten. Who knows what the rule is?

AFAIK there are no rules at all governing the names of taxa above the genus.

Going off on a tangent, something I'VE been waiting to ask for a few days 
now is how did Polacanthids, and Thyreophorans in general, mate?  All 
those spikes and the tails not being able to bend vertically would have 
made it rather difficult.  I can visualize a couple of Stegosaurus 
balancing on two legs each, but what about Nodosaurus or Euoplocephalus? 
Would they have needed sideways genitalia like Anableps?  (If people are 
sick of yet another dino copulation thread I'll let the matter lie.)

                                                                Bill Adlam