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

Re: Type material: does it have to look pretty?

Dinogeorge@aol.com wrote:

> >There's no sexual bias in type-specimen selection (even if we knew [among
> >dino fossils] which is male and which is female). However, one sex or the
> >other might show off the diagnostic features better, so an individual of that
> >sex might be chosen as holotype over an individual of the other sex.
> >Lectotype" doesn't mean "an additional type specimen"; a lectotype is simply
> >a type specimen selected in a different work from the original description,
> >when the original author's designation of a type specimen is found to be
> >ambiguous. There's usually (almost always) just one type specimen per species
> >in vertebrate paleontology.

How then are the same species designated when there are recognised (or assumed)
to be two morphs, such as male and female characteristic dimorphism.
If the type (say one of the good 'ol Oviraptors) has a big crest and is a large
animal but another from the same local and horizon is pretty dang close in looks
and MUCH of the diagnostic features, but the crest aint so big or as fancy and
that other one is considereably more petite...how does one indicate this is a
supposed same species but different sex?
Or do you have to identify this other one as another species offcially?
Can you just describe BOTH sets diagnostic features of the crest under one
species?  (Ie; this dinosaur has a little bitty crest and sometimes a big honkin
crest, and all the requesite bumbs on it's elbows besides....)

Juveniles found with an adult would seem to be a problem if such late-developing
things such as crests are diagnostic of that species. So what happens with them?
Wouldn't the juvenile features need to be considered dagnostic as well so when
other juveniles are found, they can be compared.

> >The sum total of the type specimen plus all referred material from the type
> >locality, regardless of sex, etc., constitutes the "hypodigm" of the species.
> >The hypodigm "fills in" as much as possible of the anatomy of the species,
> >which may not be available from the type specimen alone.

Is "hypodigm" from the same root as paradigm?