Re: Labrosaurus (was RE: birds and dinosaurs)

[Mickey Mortimer <Mickey_Mortimer111@msn.com>]

Jaime Headden wrote-

> <The neotype.  Remember _Eucoelophysis baldwini_ (the erstwhile holotype
> of _Coelophysis bauri_)?>
>
>   No.
>
>   The holotype of *Eucoelophysis* is NMMNH P-22298, the lectotype of
> *Coelophysis* is AMNH 2722, and it's neotype is AMNH 7224, also the
> holotype of *Rioarribasaurus.* The lectotype of *Coelophysis* has never
> been renamed and, effectively, cannot be since it can only carry the name
> of it's original species.

But what if we discover the Coelophysis bauri holotype is diagnostic and
referrable to the same species as Eucoelophysis baldwini's holotype, but not
the Coelophysis bauri neotype?  Then the name bauri would stay with the
neotype, and the Coelophysis bauri holotype would be relegated as a referred
specimen of Eucoelophysis baldwini, right?  You could hardly keep the bauri
holotype in bauri if the neotype is a different species.  And the ICZN
already ruled to keep bauri associated with the Ghost Ranch specimens, so
you couldn't backpeddle and call the bauri neotype Rioarribasaurus colberti
again.

Mickey Mortimer
Undergraduate, Earth and Space Sciences
University of Washington
The Theropod Database - http://students.washington.edu/eoraptor/Home.html