I thought they were synonymous, so why don't we use Procheneosaurus?On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 6:07 PM Tyler Greenfield <tgreenfield999@gmail.com> wrote:The conserved genusÂProcheneosaurus Matthew, 1920 has priority over Lambeosaurus Parks, 1923 if the two genera are considered synonymous. However, the subsequently designated type species of Procheneosaurus, Tetragonosaurus praeceps Parks, 1931, does not have priority over the type species of Lambeosaurus, Lambeosaurus lambei Parks, 1923. If the two species are considered synonymous, the correct combination would be Procheneosaurus lambei (Parks, 1923).On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 4:33 PM Stephen Poropat <stephenfporopat@gmail.com> wrote:Presumably because the type species of Procheneosaurus (Tetragonosaurus praeceps) was not named until eight years after Lambeosaurus lambei.--On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 at 07:09, Ethan Schoales <ethan.schoales@gmail.com> wrote:It's an officially conserved name and it's older than Lambeosaurus, so why isn't it used?Dr Stephen F. PoropatPostdoctoral Researcher (Palaeontology)Faculty of Science, Engineering and TechnologySwinburne University of TechnologyApplied Sciences Building, John StHawthorn, VictoriaAustralia 3122Phone: +61 3 9214 5152Alternate email: sporopat@swin.edu.auResearch Associate
Australian Age of Dinosaurs Museum of Natural History1 Dinosaur Drive, The Jump-UpWinton, QueenslandAustralia 4735