[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: are these names now technically "taken" for dinos?

To: DML <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Subject: Re: are these names now technically "taken" for dinos?
From: David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 02:04:02 +0200
Authentication-results: msg-ironport0.usc.edu; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
In-reply-to: <934707.39862.qm@web111615.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <934707.39862.qm@web111615.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Reply-to: david.marjanovic@gmx.at
Sender: owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu

 Gigantosaurus

Taken twice over, first by an undiagnostic fragment that could be thesame as (for example) *Pelorosaurus*, and then by something that had tobe renamed *Tornieria*.

References:
- are these names now technically "taken" for dinos?
  - From: B tH <soylentgreenistrex@yahoo.com>

Prev by Date: Re: are these names now technically "taken" for dinos?
Next by Date: RE: The new academic aristocracy / plain-text mgs
Previous by thread: Re: are these names now technically "taken" for dinos?
Next by thread: Re: are these names now technically "taken" for dinos?
Indexes: