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

Re: On naming taxa




Dinogeorge@aol.com writes:


I should point out that most of Gregory Paul's new species never recieved
acceptance. Aublysodon molnari and Albertosaurus megagracilis were based on
evidence that was not strong - and were never really given a good diagnosis
(like Acrocanthosaurus altispinax).>>


Well, I certainly accepted these three taxa(!). I should also point out that
even the genus Tyrannosaurus hasn't yet been given a good diagnosis,

T. rex was named back in 1905, when the rules for naming animals did not require an explicit diagnosis.


Right now, its
diagnosis seems to be "big tyrannosaurid from the Maastrichtian of North
America." At least, any dinosaur that presently satisfies these criteria is
automatically and uncritically referred to the genus Tyrannosaurus (indeed,
to the species T. rex).

This approach of is perhaps preferable to automatically naming a whole new genus based on a scrappy and/or incomplete specimen, simply because it seems a little different from a "typical" T. rex specimen.



The problem of whether or not taxa are valid is quite distinct from the
problems that would be caused by mandatory taxon registration. I would rather
have Greg's nomenclature in print than suppressed by some reviewer's fiat,
for example.

I would rather a reviewer "weed out" crappy new species before they see the light of day.



ZH _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.