[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Dinosaur Genera List corrections #154
In a message dated 1/3/01 5:43:21 AM EST, Adam.Yates@bristol.ac.uk writes:
<< > But do Microraptor and Archaeoraptor share the _same_ type specimen?
> named from the counterslab of the other. Same individual, for sure. But
> technically one could say that they have separate type specimens.
The way I see it whatever catalogue numbers are given is irrelevant. If
the two names are attached to different parts of the same individual
then there is zero chance that they could be different species and one
name must be the objective synonym of the other. >>
This is the way the Code sees it, too. The definitions under "synonym" in the
glossary imply that if the synonymy is not subjective (i.e., a matter of
opinion), then it must be objective. Of course, if the species are based on
the exact same type specimen, the synonymy cannot be anything other than
objective; but that's not the >only< way synonyms can be objective.