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

[Dinogeorge@aol.com]

In a message dated 11/11/99 3:07:04 PM EST, twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com 
writes:

<< 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_. >>

I certainly agree. But the possibility does exist.