Re: Old Dubia vs. New Valida

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

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

> 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.

But if the type species of a genus is a junior synonym, the genus can't be
valid. What you propose would only work if the animals were congeneric but
not conspecific.

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