Re: [dinosaur] Uberabatitan vertebral air-sacs + Orthomerus + Eolambia + Giganotosaurus

["David Marjanovic" <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

 

Thiago Vernaschi V. Costa (2019)

Remarks on the name of the hadrosauroid dinosaur Eolambia caroljonesa Kirkland, 1998 (Ornithischia)
Revista Brasileira de Paleontologia 22(2):165–166
doi:10.4072/rbp.2019.2.07
http://www.sbpbrasil.org/assets/uploads/files/rbp2019207.pdf

The large hadrosauroid dinosaur Eolambia caroljonesa was named in honor of Carol Jones, the discoverer of the place where the type specimens were found. However, according to the article 31.1.2 of the ICZN, the form caroljonesae should have been used and, thus, caroljonesa represents an incorrect original spelling subject to a justified emendation. Such emendation is required in cases on which the incorrect original spelling of a species-group name must be corrected, as stated by the article 32.5.1 of the ICZN. Therefore, based on the express application of the nomenclatural rules, the name of the species must be corrected to Eolambia caroljonesae.

 

Hm.

 

In principle, it could also be a noun in apposition, like Galeocerdo cuvier, the tiger shark. It would certainly be weird to indicate that Eolambia is Carol Jones in some way, but it's not forbidden and would not, if intended, be automatically corrected, as G. cuvier demonstrates.

 

The author points out that before the name Eolambia was validly published, the specimen was informally called "Eohadrosaurus caroljonesi", with a (masculine) genitive, and states that this "undoubtedly indicates the author's intention" to make the species name a genitive. I'm not sure this is "undoubted" enough for the ICZN, though.

 

The original valid description is on Google Books here. It only says "The specific name is for Carol Jones", which is again suggestive but not unambiguous, and cites "Eohadrosaurus caroljonesi". The species name occurs three times in the paper, meaning it's probably not a typo in any case.

Strangely, I can't find any evidence in the paper that Kirkland was simply asked what he had meant – even though the paper spent almost seven months in review.