Re: Is Kayentavenator a tetanurine or a juvenile kayentakatae?

[Dan Chure <danchure@easilink.com>]

 No to reignite the gasoline, but the discussion wasn't about an 
unorthodox method of publication but about how the name is not validly 
created. I would suggest that discussion about the material should 
either refer to the material by specimen number or with quotation marks 
around "Kayentavenator" and not italicize it. I don't believe it can 
synonymized with any other taxon because the name is not valid. To me, 
the name can simply be ignored.

Whoops, there goes the gas .............

Dan


On 10/1/2010 4:51 PM, Michael Mortimer wrote:
> Back in June when Rob Gay published his Kayentavenator description, the DML was busy discussing its 
> unorthodox method of publication.  Rob quite fairly asked "Anyone want to talk about the 
> papers themselves?"  At my blog I've written two posts that discuss the substance of the 
> Kayentavenator paper.  The first evaluates his claim Kayentavenator belongs to Tetanurae and is 
> different from coelophysoids.  The second discusses the possibility Kayentavenator is a young 
> individual of "Megapnosaurus" kayentakatae, as it was originally thought to be.
>
> http://theropoddatabase.blogspot.com/2010/09/kayentavenator-is-not-tetanurine.html
>
> http://theropoddatabase.blogspot.com/2010/10/is-kayentavenator-young-megapnosaurus.html
>
> Mickey Mortimer
>