[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Old Dubia vs. New Valida
In a message dated 1/24/2000 11:58:49 AM Pacific Standard Time,
tmk@dinosaur.umbc.edu writes:
> 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!).
I don't think so. The generic and specific names are treated separately in
terms of priority. If the type material of _"R." tamesnensis_ could be
convincingly shown to belong to the same taxon as _J. tiguidensis_, then I
believe the species would acquire the name _J. tamesnensis_. It seems to me
this has happened before, but I can't think of an example off the top of my
head.
--Nick P.