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

Re: A Clutter of Duckbills

G.O. writes:

>But which is easier: to
>have to write the full names Hypacrosaurus casuarius,
>Hypacrosaurus lambei, Hypacrosaurus altispinus, Hypacrosaurus
>magnicristatus, Hypacrosaurus laticaudus, and Hypacrosaurus
>stebingeri every time you want to talk about these dinos, or just
>to write one generic name for each? I'd put them in six different
>genera, if it were up to me.

Correction.  It is much easier to write Hypacrosaurus casuarius, H. lambei,
H. altispinus, H. magnicristatus, H. laticaudus, and H. stebingeri than to
write three genus names.  Saying Hypacrosaurus once, and then writing the
abbreviation H., saves time. And I fully agree that all six animals belong in
the genus _Hypacrosaurus_.  Splitters I am not in full concensus with
(whatever that means).  I examine these lumpings and splittings for myself
and decide for myself which ones seem most probable, and most reasonable.
 Splitting up six species as closely related as these in six separate genera
is PREPOSTEROUS!  :)  G.O., obviously you will not make it as a taxonomist or
cladist, or whoever those people are.

People argue so much as to which dinosaur species goes where, and names are
changed and species moved so frequently that, until a new criteria is
developed, it would be BEST to put each dinosaur species in its own genus!
 At least, that's what most people seem to want, or are arguing for.  It's as
if in the dinosaur world, no two species belonged in the same genus.  It is
really LAME, IMHO.

For example, I believe that the lumping of _Ultrasauros machintoshi_ into
_Brachiosaurus_ is very reasonable, at least until new Ultrasauros material
is found.  Whereas, the lumping of _Deinonychus_ into _Velociraptor_ is not.

Anyway...  end of discussion for now.

Raptor RKC (Rachel Clark)