[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?  
One is 
 > 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.