[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Defunct genera and _Pekinosaurus galtoni_ (was Re: Suchomimus' forcula)
In a message dated 9/25/00 2:45:52 PM EST, firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
<< In these cases I think the lumping is justified. Well-represented dino
species (_Allosaurus fragilis_, _Coelophysis bauri_, _Triceratops horridus_,
to name a few) tend to show a lot of morphological variation within the
Problem is skeletal morphology alone tends to understate diversity; it's all
too easy to ascribe all kinds of morphological differences to individual
variation, ontogeny, sexual dimorphism (to cite the usual three culprits).
E.g., lions and tigers are skeletally indistinguishable (any putative
differences are swamped by individual variation within each species) but
they're definitely different species. There should be some way to take
temporal (stratigraphic) and spatial (locality) distribution into account in
describing species in addition to morphology, but so far our data are not up
to the job.