[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Coelophysis 18, Rioarribasaurus 8
From: "King, Norm" <email@example.com>
> I think that _Marasuchus_ is also an inappropriate name. Since
> subsequent studies have shown that the type material for _Lagosuchus_ is
Except that the type material for Lagosuchus is NOT non-diagnostic.
It is merely lacking any autapomorphies - which is a perfectly reasonable
thing to see in an ancestral species. (In fact some strict cladists
wish to use this as the main criterion for *recognizing* ancestral
The Marasuchus material has some apomorphies that are demonstrably
*absent* in the Lagosuchus material. The two type specimens thus
almost certainly belong to distinct species.
> But now, when someone uses the name _Lagosuchus_, we need to ask
> whether he/she means the "old, original" _Lagosuchus_, or really
> means _Marasuchus_.
THe problem is that whether the two species should belong to one genus
is a judgement issue, unless one is a strict cladist.
They certainly deserve distinct names at the species level, and a strict
cladist *must* give them distinct genus level names.
The peace of God be with you.