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

Gryphoceratops was Re: Vitakridrinda publication validity

To: dinosaur@usc.edu
Subject: Gryphoceratops was Re: Vitakridrinda publication validity
From: "David Marjanovic" <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 19:46:22 +0100
Authentication-results: msg-ip0.usc.edu; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
In-reply-to: <CADGyndisrz90eNEwE-tPzS5qi-tPKQcmpaJ0XqA-NU-eXXHwfw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <COL107-W305FF9807382685305C273AC650@phx.gbl> <CA+nnY_G9vU9SEq02-fdPGtz+-CPWU3OnJwNYZsXKp5RvguRUTg@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-to: david.marjanovic@gmx.at
Sender: owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu

> 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

No; I'm sure the 6 Google hits for _gryphognathus dipnoi_ are misspellings of 
the Devonian lungfish *Griphognathus*. (_griphognathus dipnoi_ has 936 ghits.)

References:
- Vitakridrinda publication validity
  - From: Mickey Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com>
- Re: Vitakridrinda publication validity
  - From: Tim Williams <tijawi@gmail.com>
- Re: Vitakridrinda publication validity
  - From: Justin Tweet <thescelosaurus@gmail.com>

Prev by Date: Re: Gryphoceratops published? (was RE: Vitakridrinda publication validity)
Next by Date: Re: Vitakridrinda publication validity
Previous by thread: Re: Gryphoceratops published? (was RE: Vitakridrinda publication validity)
Next by thread: Re: Vitakridrinda publication validity
Indexes: