[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Epanterias and Breviparopus
> I take your point but, in sticking with an senior synonym or, worse still,
> resurecting a long dead one, the reserector must give a valid reason why
> they reject the synonomising in the first place. How does Bakker jutify
> this or doesn't he bother?
He has a very narrow generic concept - that is how he justifies it.
> >Bakker is what is called a "splitter" in taxonomic parlance. That
> >is he splits organisms into more lower level groups than most other
> >workers. For instnce he splits Stegosaurus into two genera!! ...
> Yeh, I know about splitters and lumpers, having been accused of being both
> with my work on croc (no rest for the wicked!). But splitting or lumping is
> a fundementally different activity than resurecting oly synonyms, unless,
> ofcourse, a splitter proceeds by using spent synonyms, which is what I
> gather you are saying about Bakker.
Pretty much, yes.
In fact the rules of nomenclature can *require* the use of a junior
subjective synonym when the type specimen of that synonym is included
in the split off taxon.
Note, his splitting mostly takes the form of seperating slightly
divergent species into seperate genera. This is what he did with
Diracodon (from Stegosaurus). In fact the two species he put in
Diracodon look like they are really only one species, so Diracodon
simply reduces to a species of Stegosaurus! Similarly, Epanterias
is simply the largest species of Allosaurus.
[In fact Bakker's generic concept seems to be close to the "broad"
species conept that many other paleontologists are leaning towards].
I am (or try to be) middle of the road on genera, and tend towards
lumping (mildly) on species.
The peace of God be with you.