Laelaps and Brontosauria (was Re: Resending)

[Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

Jaime A. Headden wrote:

> As it is, we are still dealing with the synonymy issues
> of overabundant naming and name-calling, such as Cure's 2000 paper in 
> _Mesozoic
> Vertebrate Life_ dealing with "Laelaps" teeth.

On the _Laelaps_ issue, Marsh would have the last laugh.  Cope named 
_Laelaps_ in 1866.  However, the name was taken by a genus of arthropod 
(_Laelaps_ Koch, 1839) - not an insect (for a change), but a mite.  Marsh 
became aware of this, and politely informed Cope of this issue of priority 
and gave Cope the opportunityto re-name the genus...  Yeah right!  Marsh 
himself re-named the genus in 1877, endowing it with the name 
_Dryptosaurus_.  Cope was reportedly mad as hell, and continued to call 
"his" dinosaur _Laelaps_.  (Apparently Cope argued that _Laelaps_ was 
available because _Laelaps_ Koch was considered a junior synonym of another 
mite genus.  Even if Cope was right, the rules don't work that way; 
_Dryptosaurus_ wins out.)

Mike Keesey wrote:

> I used it once on the Dinosauricon for the least inclusive clade
> containing _sauropoda_ and _Prosauropoda_ sensu Wilson and Sereno,
> but, since Wilson and Sereno's definition of _Prosauropoda_ differs
> from Olshevsky's more traditional usage of the taxon (especially given
> Yates' latest topologies), I later removed it.

However, Brontosauria could be retained for the clade that includes 
Prosauropoda (sensu stricto; =?Plateosauridae) and Sauropoda (or the more 
inclusive Anchisauria), but not basal sauropodomorphs (like _Saturnalia_, 
_Thecodontosaurus_, maybe _Efraasia_).  Thus, it would approximate 
Olshevsky's usage of the term Brontosauria in terms of content.

Cheers

Tim