Re: Typical and less typical types

["Jaime A. Headden" <qilongia@yahoo.com>]

Ken Carpenter (KCarpenter@dmns.org) wrote:

<A holotype is always a holotype, even if the name is declared a nomen
dubium. The tooth of Paleoscincus costatus (Acad. Nat Sci of Phil. 9263)
is still the holotype for that taxon even though the name is a nomen
dubium. The name is just restricted to that specimen.>

  In continuing with the thread from before, the holotype of *Coelophsyis*
-- if at any point someone would determine [and demonstrate] this to be
diagnostic and distinct from other, say, Ghost Ranch, material -- would be
retained as the indicative type (holotype) for *Coelophysis,* in spite of
the designation of a neotype. Essentially, the neotype is rendered
unneccesary, and the descision is "reversed" by demonstration of
diagnostic qualities. I have yet to see a determinate argument for why the
lectotype sacrum is NOT diagnostic for *Coelophysis* bauri.

  Cheers,


=====
Jaime A. Headden

  Little steps are often the hardest to take.  We are too used to making leaps 
in the face of adversity, that a simple skip is so hard to do.  We should all 
learn to walk soft, walk small, see the world around us rather than zoom by it.

"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)


        
                
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail