[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.