Talk:Gongxianosaurus

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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)