Re: Me vs. Makovicky et al.- comparison and consensus

[K and T Dykes <ktdykes@arcor.de>]

<<I'm very surprised Lambert got credit for Coloradisaurus.  Though my
memories of the book are vague, I don't recall it being the type to include
species names, diagnoses (13.1.1) or bibliographic references to the
technical literature (13.1.2).  Are we sure it's valid?>>

A diagnosis isn't required for nomenclatural tidying, as Jay pointed out.  I
co-authored a nomenclatural note a couple of years ago in a respectable
journal.  What we aimed for (if possible) were the original citations of
both the valid genus (which was a freshwater plankton for the 1850s), and
the consequently preoccupied one.  We happened to get both.  I don't know if
that's always required though.

Unbeknownst to us, somebody had published a replacement name the year
before.  Shucks!  Our effort would have been a fine name for a Morrison
Formation mammal, but it's now officially /Comodon/.  It sounds a bit like a
small nightpot...