Gryphoceratops published? (was RE: Vitakridrinda publication validity)

[Brad McFeeters <archosauromorph2@hotmail.com>]

According to one of the authors, the version with "Gryphognathus" wasn't 
intended to be the final draft, despite being leaked by the journal.  
And is the print version of the "June" issue of Cretaceous Research seriously 
out already?!  It's still February! 
If the June 2012 issue containing *Gryphoceratops* is has indeed been printed 
in February 2012, but someone later publishes a synonym of it in a journal 
dated May 2012, how would anyone prove the priority of *Gryphoceratops*?  Has a 
taxon ever been unfairly sunk because the journal was dated incorrectly?

----------------------------------------
> Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 17:12:22 -0600
> From: thescelosaurus@gmail.com
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: Re: Vitakridrinda publication validity
>
> How long has Article 9.9 been in effect? The accepted citation for the
> naming of Parksosaurus, Sternberg 1937, is the 1930s version of a GSA
> abstract. Of course, the holotype had already been described by Parks
> (as Thescelosaurus warreni). Not quite as odd as Lull stumping for
> Procheneosaurus (named in a caption), but still...
>
> Speaking of modification of names, the print version of "New
> leptoceratopsids from the Upper Cretaceous of Alberta, Canada"
> (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cretres.2011.11.018) has changed
> Gryphognathus (online advance version) to Gryphoceratops. Was the
> former preoccupied?
>
> -Justin