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

Re: Dinosaur Genera List update #186

To: "The Dinosaur Mailing List" <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Subject: Re: Dinosaur Genera List update #186
From: "David Marjanovic" <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 12:43:27 +0200
References: <68.1f4e5778.29ff0835@aol.com>
Reply-to: david.marjanovic@gmx.at
Sender: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu

> Palaeosauriscus, of course, is Kuhn, 1959's replacement name for the
> preoccupied Palaeosaurus Riley & Stutchbury, 1836. As noted in Dinosaur
> Genera List corrections #139, this name change was unnecessary (see
Benton,
> Juul, Storrs
> & Galton, 2000), because the name Paleosaurus Riley & Stutchbury, 1840 is
not
> preoccupied and is available to replace Palaeosaurus Riley & Stutchbury,
> 1836. (Spelling is important here.) Paleosaurus is not the same genus as
> Palaeosaurus Fitzinger, 1840.

Are you sure *Paleosaurus* isn't just a misspelling?

References:
- Dinosaur Genera List update #186
  - From: Dinogeorge@aol.com

Prev by Date: Re: Dinotopia and Stupid Commentaries.
Next by Date: Re: Kakapo and the origin of flight
Previous by thread: Dinosaur Genera List update #186
Next by thread: Re: Dinosaur Genera List update #186
Indexes: