Re: Dinosaur Genera List corrections #130

[rjmeyer@ix.netcom.com (Rob Meyerson)]

Dinogeorge writes,

>As I understand it, the Hoplitosuchus problem occurred because von Huene 
>misspelled the name Hoplitosaurus somewhere along the line (1938?), and this 
>misspelling is preoccupied by Lucas, 1902, for an Early Cretaceous North 
>American polacanthine ankylosaurian. Unfortunately, I can't check my library 
>because the relevant papers are still boxed. My files have 1938 as the date 
>for both of von Huene's names Hoplitosaurus and Hoplitosuchus, but it is 
>still possible that von Huene used the preoccupied name Hoplitosaurus before 
>he used Hoplitosuchus. If so, the latter would be a replacement name for the 
>former; otherwise the former is simply a misspelling of the latter.

Under ICZN rules, how do taxonomists deal with a problem like this?  Do they 
only recognize the earliest published name, and in this case mispelled, name?  
I am thinking along the lines of the Apatosaur/Brontosaur controversy, and am 
wondering how strict the rules are for naming new species.


Rob Meyerson

***
What could possibly go wrong?