Talk:Gongxianosaurus

Dinosaurs Low‑importance

	Dinosaurs portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Still a nomen nudum?

The descriptions in 1998 and 2000 did not designate any type material nor provided a diagnosis. The name at the time was thus a nomen nudum. Does anyone know whether some subsequent publication remedied this?--MWAK (talk) 05:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The original description of He et al (1998) contains both a diagnosis and designations of the type and paratypes. Do I miss something? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, it was I who made a mistake, at least in overlooking the diagnosis. But I still can't find a holotype or paratype number. Admittedly, I'm basing myself on the "paleoglot" translation by Will Downs. Are these designations present in the Chinese original? And if so, what are they?--MWAK (talk) 13:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see, they only say they selected a type, but without giving any specimen numbers, so this is kind of useless … --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. However, even if the fixation of a holotype is seen as failed (which is only true if today no evidence at all can be found to determine which actual specimen they meant in 1998), the name is still valid under article 72.1.1. ICZN, the specimens reported from the location acting as syntypes. So I was wrong to think it ever was a nomen nudum.--MWAK (talk) 06:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]