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

Re: [Spam:5.7 SpamScore] Re: Leviathan melvillei -- preoccupied?

To: dinosaur@usc.edu
Subject: Re: [Spam:5.7 SpamScore] Re: Leviathan melvillei -- preoccupied?
From: James Stearns <jstea003@odu.edu>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 00:40:51 -0600
Authentication-results: msg-ironport2.usc.edu; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
In-reply-to: <AANLkTimDoAVF6ZfioGz_k7Dyy_vw3eJ5HTTjzYtHcQ-1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <952663.35159.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <004c01cb18e6$cb17a420$6402a8c0@your50d5b2j9ux>
Reply-to: jstea003@odu.edu
Sender: owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu

> Hang on.  If the preoccupation is a junior synonym, then isn't that usage 
> rendered irrelevant and, therefore, the name would be available for valid 
> use?  McKenna & Bell, 1997 has it as a junior synonym.
Sadly, that wouldn't be an option. Junior synonyms retain their status
just in case the specimen in question actually does wind up being
reinterpreted as a different genus. If that were not so, I could
legitimately name a new sauropod "Brontosaurus".

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [Spam:5.7 SpamScore] Re: Leviathan melvillei -- preoccupied?
  - From: Tim Williams <tijawi@yahoo.com>

References:
- Re: Leviathan melvillei -- preoccupied?
  - From: Tim Williams <tijawi@yahoo.com>
- Re: Leviathan melvillei -- preoccupied?
  - From: "K and T Dykes" <ktdykes@arcor.de>

Prev by Date: Re: Leviathan melvillei -- preoccupied?
Next by Date: Re: Leviathan melvillei -- preoccupied?
Previous by thread: Re: Leviathan melvillei -- preoccupied?
Next by thread: Re: [Spam:5.7 SpamScore] Re: Leviathan melvillei -- preoccupied?
Indexes: