[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Javelina Hadrosaurs [was: Re: Hadrosaurs etc]
In a message dated 11/4/02 5:43:31 PM EST, jonathan.r.wagner@mail.utexas.edu
writes:
<< Lastly, a minor quibble: lambeosaurINE and hadrosaurINE are the preferred
terms. AFAIK, no one is using Horner's exclusive, "family"-rank distinction
of Lambeosauridae vs. Hadrosauridae. Hadrosauridae has almost invariably
included "lambeys." >>
As you might expect, >I< perversely use Lambeosauridae and Hadrosauridae
rather than Lambeosaurinae and Hadrosaurinae, as subgroups of a more
inclusive Hadrosauria. Since rank is entirely arbitrary, it really makes
little difference which way one does it, but family-level gives a little more
room at the bottom for "subfamilies" such as Saurolophinae, Gryposaurinae,
Lambeosaurinae (for Corythosaurus, Lambeosaurus, and Hypacrosaurus),
Parasaurolophinae (for Parasaurolophus and Charonosaurus, and perhaps
Tsintaosaurus and Bactrosaurus), and Hadrosaurinae (restricted to the nomen
dubium Hadrosaurus right now: painful but Hadrosaurus as a nomen dubium
renders the same courtesy to Hadrosaurinae and Hadrosauridae; next available
name for the group customarily known as Hadrosaurinae would be Saurolophinae).
Another hadrosaurian problem is the name Procheneosaurus, which was conserved
by the ICZN back in the middle of the 20th century (over Tetragonosaurus). If
Dodson is correct and the type specimen of Procheneosaurus praeceps is a
juvenile Lambeosaurus lambei, then Procheneosaurus must take priority over
Lambeosaurus, and the type species of Procheneosaurus becomes Procheneosaurus
lambei (note that the species epithet lambei has priority over the species
epithet praeceps, even though the generic names are the other way). Even
though Lambeosaurus would sink as a junior synonym, the names Lambeosaurinae
and Lambeosauridae would remain in use (synonymy of a genus doesn't
invalidate its family-level names, if any).