Re: Labrosaurus (was RE: birds and dinosaurs)

[John Hunt <john.bass@ntlworld.com>]

As a non palaeontologist, all these different types are a bit confusing.
I looked at the ICZN website for definitions but it appears to be dead.

Could someone explain all of these different types so this thread makes
sense.

I must admit to wondering what the impact would be if a complete
Megalosaurus were to be found, as this obviously has priority over
anything named since.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jaime A. Headden" <qilongia@yahoo.com>
To: <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Cc: <npharris@umich.edu>
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 12:50 AM
Subject: RE: Labrosaurus (was RE: birds and dinosaurs)


> Nick Pharris (npharris@umich.edu) 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. This is why we don't use *Griphosaurus*
today,
> as the London specimen, not the feather, is the holotype by both von
> Meyer's designation, useage, and by ICZN designation in the 1960's
when
> this issue was considered problematic enough by Ostrom to require
sinking
> of the older name *crassipes* that might have priority over
> *lithographica.*
>
>   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!?
> Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail