[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: [dinosaur] Procheneosaurus



Ah, you're right.  I was confusing the 50 year part of Article 23.9.1.2.  So no, Manospondylus doesn't count since Hay (1902) used it as a ceratopsid without noting any invalidity.  Luckily, there are no apomorphies shared between it and Tyrannosaurus not found in e.g. Tarbosaurus, so it's a nomen dubium.

Mickey Mortimer


From: Tyler Greenfield <tgreenfield999@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 4:32 AM
To: Mickey Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com>; dinosaur-l@usc.edu <dinosaur-l@usc.edu>
Subject: Re: [dinosaur] Procheneosaurus
 
Nomina oblita are names that haven’t been used as valid after 1899, not just 50 years. The other condition is that the nomen protectum has to have been used as valid in at least 25 publications in the last 50 years, which alsohave span a period of more than 10 years and have at least 10 authors. Tyrannosaurus definitely meets the requirements of the latter, but I’m not sure that Manospondylus meets the requirements of the former.

> On Sep 17, 2020, at 6:04 AM, Mickey Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com> wrote: