Procheneosaurus (was Re: Two open letters from Storrs Olson (LONG))

["Timothy Williams" <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

George Olshevsky wrote:

> Since Procheneosaurus has
> priority by three years over the famous name Lambeosaurus--and the type 
> species Procheneosaurus praeceps is >probably< based on the
> skeleton of a juvenile Lambeosaurus lambei (Dodson, 1975), type
> species of Lambeosaurus--it may be necessary to sink Lambeosaurus in > 
favor of Procheneosaurus as a junior subjective synonym.


I don't think this would happen, for two reasons:
1) As with centrosaurines and chasmosaurines, the diagnostic characters of 
lambeosaurines are probably ontogeny-dependent and only manifest themselves 
with maturity.  _Procheneosaurus praeceps_ may be a juvenile _L. lambei_, 
but this this will be hard to prove.  Like _Monoclonius crassus_ and 
_Brachyceratops montanensis_, names based on juvenile lambeosaurine material 
are probably best treated as nomina dubia.

(2) Any attempt to sink _L_ into _P_ would be met with some degree of 
consternation from the palaeontological community.  I'm sure the ICZN would 
be petitioned to have a name as well-loved as _Lambeosaurus_ preserved and 
_Procheneosaurus_ suppressed a la _Coelophysis_.


Tim

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com