Re: Labrosaurus (was RE: birds and dinosaurs)

[Mickey Mortimer <Mickey_Mortimer111@msn.com>]

Jaime Headden wrote-

> <But what if someone refers a specimen from a different locality to their
> new taxon?  Then it's a paratype, but cannot be a topotype.>
>
>   No. It may not be a topotype, but a paratype MUST be designated at the
> same time as the holotype.

Yes, that's how I meant it.  What if someone refers a specimen from a
different locality to the taxon they describe and name in that same paper?
It would be a paratype, but not a topotype, contra your earlier statement
"the paratype or syntype series, however, MUST be topotypes".
However, later in this response you indicated it's "bad practice" to call
such specimens paratypes, which sort of answers my question.

>   The ICZN defines these words as:
>
>   "paratype: each specimen of a type series (q.v.) from which neither a
> holotype nor a lectotype has been designated [Arts. 72.1.2, 73.2, 74]. The
> syntypes collectively constitute the name-bearing type."

And what's the ICZN definition of "type series"?

> <My philosophy is that through discussion, A. "whitei"'s proper status as
> a junior synonym of A. fragilis can be established in the public's mind.
> That's a better situation than the name floating about in obscurity where
> people might think it's potentially valid.  Maybe the Phylocode will end
> worries of officially naming nomina nuda due to misunderstandings or greed
> with its proposed name registration system.>
>
>   Through simple discussion of the opinion determined through a worker's
> thesis. This was not demonstrated otherwise. The complex of features used
> to define Pickering's taxon may be unique for a species, even if their
> distribution is varied through recognized *fragilis.* This does not
> invalidate the effective reference of the name.

Well, I should have said "subjective junior synonym".

> The name used is a nomen
> nudum to some, but is a nomen validum to others, and has been used as a
> referenced name by still others. This makes the issue a LOT more
> problematic.

Some of those people are wrong then, for it's either valid or not according
to ICZN rules.

> By ICZN rules, Pickering's work is valid.

Chure (2000) disagrees, and you seemed to hold a different opinion
previously as well - http://www.cmnh.org/dinoarch/2002Nov/msg00442.html

> Personal publication of Olshevsky's work, for instance, and
> the nomenclature therein, has been much more broadly received than
> Pickering's, though both were done in the same essential manner.

I think this is because they were not done in the same manner.  Olshevsky's
work was distributed to the Library of Congress, according to you.  He also
has explicit ordering information on his website
(http://members.aol.com/Dinogeorge/index.html).  Furthermore, his work is
done in a far more professional, paleontological manner than Pickering's.
These contrast the aspects of Pickering's work that led Chure to reject it
as valid.

>   If the lectotype of *Coelophysis bauri* (which will always be the
> holotype of it, even if there is a neotype), is determined at some point
> by someone to be diagnostic, and the holotype of *Eucoelophysis baldwini*
> is determined to correspond directly to the same species, then
> *Eucoelophysis* is determined to be a junior synonym of *Coelophysis,* and
> the NMMNH specimen is treated as part of the *Coelophysis* hypodigm, as
> always happens if a holotype is refered to the hypodigm of another taxon.
> The neotype becomes useless. This is under the premise that the holotype
> will have priority over a neotype if both are diagnostic. By matters of
> priority, the name *Coelophysis* has priority over *Euceolophysis,* so
> *C.* would contain *E.* as a junior synonym and the inverse cannot be
> true.
>
>   This would be true in *Allosaurus* as Chure has attempted to show, by
> the unique medial crest of the humerus. An "nunneccessary" neotype
> situation has not ever occured to my knowledge, so I would think the ICZN,
> if considered "valid," would be at least consulted on this, and if
> neccessary it's plenary powers excercised. At this point, if the lectotype
> is rendered "diagnostic," then the neotype would revert back to the next
> valid name as a holotype, IF it ever had one, or could be distinguished as
> one after the fact. Then *Rioarribasaurus* could be recognized as valid,
> if also treated as a separate clade from *Coelophysis.*

Wow.  This would seem to violate the ruling of that long ICZN battle to have
Coelophysis associated with the Ghost Ranch specimens which it has been for
the last many decades.  I am perplexed by the possibility the ICZN would
allow such a thing to happen.

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