Re: Old Dubia vs. New Valida

[Dinogeorge@aol.com]

In a message dated 1/24/00 4:45:52 PM EST, NJPharris@aol.com writes:

<< I don't think so.  The generic and specific names are treated separately 
in 
 terms of priority.  If the type material of _"R." tamesnensis_ could be 
 convincingly shown to belong to the same taxon as _J. tiguidensis_, then I 
 believe the species would acquire the name _J. tamesnensis_.  It seems to me 
 this has happened before, but I can't think of an example off the top of my 
 head. >>

All the material of R. tamesnensis is type material, since Lapparent did not 
nominate a holotype. This is therefore a syntype series, and a revisor of the 
taxon has the option of nominating any specimen in the syntype series as the 
lectotype of the species R. tamesnensis. If this species does not belong in 
the genus Rebbachisaurus (and why would Lapparent have referred it to 
Rebbachisaurus if at least some of it weren't?), it may be made the type 
species of a new genus or be referred to another available genus (e.g., 
Jobaria). There may be more than one kind of sauropod in the syntype series, 
and if it's possible to separate this material into another taxon, this 
should be done, too. Too much work for today's time-pressed paleontologists; 
much easier just to discard old taxa and make up brand new names. More fun, 
too.