RE: Labrosaurus (was RE: birds and dinosaurs)

[Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. wrote:

> Actually, the "paratype" (technically a topotype, as Chure points out) and
> the (unnecessary) neotype were officially indicated in Madsen (1976, p. 
> 10).


Thanks to Tom, Ken and Mickey for setting me straight on this.  I was 
getting the terms 'paratype' and 'topotype' confused.

OK, so USNM 4734 is a topotype, and as such can be used to uphold the 
validity of _A. fragilis_, even though the holotype (YPM 1930) of this 
species is non-diagnostic at the species level.

Does the designation of a neotype require official ICZN approval?  This 
issue could get sticky should the Garden Park material (including USNM 4734) 
and the Dinosaur National Monument material (including the neotype) be 
demonstrated to be separate species.  In the event that the holotype and 
neotype of _A. fragilis_ are split up, to which specimen does the name _A. 
fragilis_ stay attached to?




Tim

_________________________________________________________________
Check out the latest news, polls and tools in the MSN 2004 Election Guide! 
http://special.msn.com/msn/election2004.armx