Old Dubia vs. New Valida

[Mike Keesey <tmk@dinosaur.umbc.edu>]

On Mon, 24 Jan 2000 Dinogeorge@aol.com wrote:

> There seem to be too many new genera being described because previous
> material was described according to different standards and is
> discarded (e.g., why Jobaria tiguidensis but not Rebbachisaurus
> tamesnensis;

That's an interesting one, since _"R." tamesnensis_ doesn't really belong
in _Rebbachisaurus_. Unless I'm mistaken, if the two species were the
same, _"R." tasmenensis_ couldn't be placed in _Jobaria_, because the type
species of _Jobaria_ (_J. tiguidensis_) would be a junior subjective
synonym (of _"R." tasmenensis_), and thus the genus would be invalid. So
_"R." tasmenensis_ would have to be given yet ANOTHER new genus name, and
_Jobaria_ would become a subjective synonym of that (despite being an
older name!). And even if they aren't the same, _"R." tasmenensis_ should
be given a new genus name.

What a mess!

-- T. Michael Keesey .................................. <tmk@dinosaur.umbc.edu>
   My Worlds (including The Dinosauricon) ... <http://dinosaur.umbc.edu/keesey>
   AOL Instant Messenger ......................................... <Ric Blayze>