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

Re: [dinosaur] Procheneosaurus

In situations like this, it's important to remember that zoological nomenclature is our servant, not our master. A century of usage has established that Lambeosaurus is the name of the animal in question: when the rules say that Procheneosaurus is the right name, that rule is wrong. (Or, more precisely, that application of the rule is wrong.) The purpose of zoological nomenclature is to facilitate the ability to refer clearly and unambiguously to an animal: the name "Lambeosaurus" is clear and unambiguous, whereas the name "Procheneosaurus" would only introduce confusion.

Much the same situation pertains with respect to Manospondylus gigas. Trying to bring that name into widespread use in place of Tyrannosaurus rex would arguably be technically "correct", but would be (A) doomed to failure, and (B) profoundly unhelpful if it did somehow succeed.

Leave Procheneosaurus in its grave; do not disturb its remains.

-- Mike.



On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 at 23:26, Tyler Greenfield <tgreenfield999@gmail.com> wrote:
If that case was closed without ICZN action, then there must be a reason why they won't suppress Procheneosaurus in favor of Lambeosaurus. Personally, I don't know how to feel about resurrecting Procheneosaurus. On one hand it does have clear priority, but on the other handÂLambeosaurus is in the prevailing usage and there isn't much of a reason to change that.

On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 5:22 PM Ethan Schoales <ethan.schoales@gmail.com> wrote:
Do you think it should be retried?

On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 6:21 PM Tyler Greenfield <tgreenfield999@gmail.com> wrote:
Procheneosaurus should technically be used, but it hasn't been used by the majority of hadrosaur workers for decades. Lambeosaurus has entered into prevailing usage by appearing in more papers than Procheneosaurus. There was a recent case to overturn ICZN Opinion 193 and suppress Procheneosaurus in favor of Lambeosaurus,Âbut it was closed and never fully published or voted on.

On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 5:17 PM Ethan Schoales <ethan.schoales@gmail.com> wrote:
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. Poropat

Postdoctoral Researcher (Palaeontology)
Faculty of Science, Engineering and Technology
Swinburne University of Technology
Applied Sciences Building, John St
Hawthorn, Victoria
Australia 3122
Phone: +61 3 9214 5152
Alternate email: sporopat@swin.edu.au

Research Associate
Australian Age of Dinosaurs Museum of Natural History
1 Dinosaur Drive, The Jump-Up
Winton, Queensland
Australia 4735