[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: On naming taxa
In a message dated 5/23/01 2:19:40 PM EST, firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
<< I would rather a reviewer "weed out" crappy new species before they see
light of day. >>
What criteria would you apply to designate taxa as "crappy" as opposed to
taxa that are "not crappy"? The only test I know of for taxonomic
"crappiness" is that of time.
With regard to diagnosing, as for, e.g., Tyrannosaurus: This can be redone
anytime we learn something more about the taxon. The diagnosis "big
tyrannosaurid from the Maastrichtian of North America" is a de facto
diagnosis, not from Osborn's 1905 paper. The fact that Tyrannosaurus was
described in the taxonomic dark age of 1905 is not particularly relevant to
having a good diagnosis for the genus.