Re: New papers in Geobios (and nomenclatoral gripe)

[Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

Mickey Mortimer wrote:

> I agree with Chris.  This is not possible to do.  You can't just sink a 
> named species into an unspecified unnamed "sp.", regardless of what 
> Weishampel thinks.  It's like when authors try to sink whole genera into 
> "Theropoda indet." and just pretend the genus and species names don't 
> exist.  If Mochlodon suessi's holotype is referrable to Zalmoxes but not 
> specifically diagnostic, there should be three species of Mochlodon - M. 
> robustus, M. shqiperorum and M. suessi.  The latter could be the holotype 
> yet still be specifically indeterminate.

I respectfully disagree.  If a species is declared to be a nomen dubium, 
then this species has no taxonomic standing whatsoever.  If the species in 
question is the type species for a genus, then this genus is also invalid.  
However, the type material for a nomen dubium may be diagnostic at the genus 
level.  If _Mochlodon suessi_ is not diagnostic at the species level, then 
_M. suessi_ is a nomen dubium; and if _M. suessi_ is the type species for 
_Mochlodon_, then _Mochlodon_ is an invalid genus.  But if the type material 
can be referred to another genus (i.e., one that is valid), its generic 
identity can be indicated as "_Zalmoxes_ sp." (as in this case).

There are other examples similar to the _Mochlodon_ situation.  Carpenter 
(1990) regarded _Denversaurus schlessmani_ as a nomen dubium, although he 
found the type material to be referrable to _Edmontonia_, as _Edmontonia_ 
sp.  He did not create the new combination _Edmontonia schlessmani_, because 
the characters used to define the species _Denversaurus schlessmani_ were 
invalid.

Cheers

Tim