Re: Tyrannosaurus imperialis?

["T. Mike Keesey" <tkeese1@gl.umbc.edu>]

On Mon, 22 Jun 1998 twilliams@canr1.cag.uconn.edu wrote:

> No one disputes that _Deinodon_ is a tyrannosaurid, but it's still an 
> invalid genus because it is based on indeterminate material.  As a _nomen 
> dubium_, _Deinodon_ cannot be the nominative genus for any subfamily, 
> family, or superfamily.  ICZN rules.
That's certainly opposite to my impression!

Are the ICZN rules on the web anywhere?

At any rate, DinoGeorge has already assured us that even though _Deinodon_
was named before _Tyrannosaurus_, Deinodontidae was named after
Tyrannosauridae (which comes a a mighty relief to me).
 
> > There are other cases where families are named
> > after invalid/dubious genera: Ceratopsidae, Caenagnathidae, etc.
> You may soon be adding Hadrosauridae, Titanosauridae, and perhaps 
> Troodontidae to the list of families named after invalid genera 
> (which would therefore makes the families invalid).

I thought _Hadrosaurus_ was long thought to be dubious. (Yet we still use
Hadrosauridae, -oidea, -inae...)

> Caenagnathidae remains valid; the fact that _Caenagnathus_ was sunk as a 
> junior synonym of _Chirostenotes_ (was it by Hans-Dieter Sues?) doesn't
> change a thing.  _Caenagnathus_ is still in the family (as a 
> subjective junior synonym of _Chirostenotes), and it is not a nomen 
> dubium.  Caenagnathidae stays.
Fair enough.

--T. Mike Keesey                                   <tkeese1@gl.umbc.edu>
DINOSAUR WEB PAGES -- http://www.gl.umbc.edu/~tkeese1/dinosaur/index.htm