RE: paleonet Dinosaur Genera List update #198

["Andrew Rindsberg" <arindsberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Allow me to repeat this interesting tidbit at the end of DinoGeorge's latest
list of new (or in this case, newly exhumed) dinosaur names:

+++++++++++++

In a most interesting paper on the history of dinosaur discoveries (thanks
to
Tracy Ford for finding this one), Delair & Sarjeant report a dinosaur fossil
originally described by Edward Lhuyd (or Edvardus Lhuyd) in 1699 and
actually
given a binominal nearly 60 years before Linnaeus introduced the current
system of biological nomenclature. While the date precludes acceptance of
the
name as scientifically valid, it nevertheless qualifies for inclusion in the
Dinosaur Genera List, and supersedes Scrotum humanum Brookes, 1763 as the
oldest name applied to a dinosaur fossil in paleontological literature.
Accordingly, I add as name #968

Here is The Dinosaur Catalogue entry:

    Rutellum Lhuyd, 1699 [nomen oblitum]
    Brontosauria > Sauropoda > Cetiosauridae
Rutellum implicatum Lhuyd, 1699†
    Jurassic > Thames gravels or Coral Rag
    Europe > Great Britain > England > Oxfordshire > 8 km SW of Whitney >
Carswell
    Lhuyd, 1699 specimen #1352 (University of Oxford collection, lost)
    Hypodigm APK: "Type" tooth only, as reported and illustrated by Delair &
Sarjeant, 2002, identified as a cetiosaurid tooth
    This is the oldest species binominal of a dinosaur thus far discovered
in
the literature, preceding by nearly 60 years the origin of the Linnaean
system and therefore not a scientifically valid name; catalogued here as a
nomen oblitum (forgotten name)

Delair, Justin B. & Sarjeant, William A. S., 2002. "The earliest discoveries
of dinosaurs; the records re-examined," Proceedings of the Geologists'
Association 113: 185–197.

+++++++++++++

This is, incidentally, an opportunity for education: Pre-Linnaean names are
technically nomina nuda, i.e., those that do not satisfy the basic
requirements of the ICZN (4th edition, Arts. 12, 13). Nomina oblita
('forgotten names') are those that are rejected in favor of younger synonyms
or homonyms as a result of action taken under Art. 23.9.2. A technical
difference, to be sure. What difference does it make? Well, nomina nuda can
be ignored; they "don't exist" for purposes of homonymy or synonomy. Nomina
oblita remain available for taxonomic purposes, so they have to be treated
gingerly.

In this case, the name Rutellum implicatum is clearly a nomen nudum, and
could thus technically be published with a new author and date for another
animal species. (It would be in poor taste, of course.) If the name were a
nomen oblitum, then it would be suppressed for use, and no one would be free
to use the name Rutellum implicatum in either Lhuyd's sense or for a new
species.

None of this is intended to ruffle DinoGeorge's feathers, be they reptilian,
dinosaurian, or avian. He is doing a sterling job of keeping the paleo
community up-to-date, and I am delighted to hear about this 'must-read'
paper by Justin Delair and the late Bill Sarjeant.

Andrew K. Rindsberg
Geological Survey of Alabama