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

re: "Megapnosaurus" says farewell...

Make that 
"We surely would NOT decide to sink the genus to get rid of the name!"

On Sun, 3 Feb 2002, Michael Ivie wrote:

> Clearly you are not a systematist, perhaps not even a real zoologist, or
> if you are, not very well trained (Princeton is it?). There is no such
> field as paleontological nomenclature. It is ZOOLOGICAL nomenclature,
> and is all the same pie.  The rules and concepts are exactly the same for
> all animal taxa (that is a named group). 
> Comparing the central storehouse of all zoological nomenclatural
> information to a phone list from a small scientific society shows your
> sense of unreality pretty well. Yep, comparing
> knowledge of the membership list of SVP to Zoo Record is about
> as ignorant a concept as I have ever seen!  Do you really think the world
> revolves around you?  I know several real paleo systematists, and
> thankfully, they are not to be lumped with you.
> Don't really care if you like the name Megapnosaurus, no one who proposes
> one can please everyone, and this one pleases enough.  I like it, and
> several other people do too.  Article 18 of the ICZN clearly makes any
> argument about its appropriateness moot. It is valid as
> the correct name for a genus that includes the type species of Syntarsus
> Raath, not Fairmaire, as long as there is not a type species of an older
> genus name included in the same generic taxon.   Whether or not it is a
> valid genus is for someone more knowledgable than either you or me to
> decide.  I don't care, don't have an opinion.  If the genus is no good,
> that is another of Raath's errors, not mine.  The CONCEPT of the genus is
> his, not ours (see ICZN).
> >From your arguments, it seems like deciding whether you want to recognize
> a genus of dinos is a matter of whether you like the name or not?  Now
> that makes your field look good.  A replacement name was needed under the 
> ICZN, I have no opinion on whether the genus is a synonym or not,
> doesn't matter to me a bit. We were fulfilling the requirements of the
> ICZN, something real systematists do.
> As for your proposed name, if Fabricius had been dumb enough to create a
> homynym with Morpho (actually, the ICZN did not exist there, so the
> concept would have been unfamiliar to him), there are numerous synonyms
> available, so your petty name would not be valid anyway. Further, if it
> were, it would be too bad you don't know something about languages so at
> least you could derive it properly (recommendation 11A of ICZN), as we
> did, or courteous enough to do create something euphonious
> (that means can be pronounced easily and sounds good -- have you tried
> Megapnosaurus out loud [Meg-ap-no-sar-us], by the way, really roles of the
> tounge nicely), but I am learning a lot in this exchange about the
> distribution of quality.  We would use it even though it violates 11A and
> General Recommendation 5 of Appendix B.  We surely would decide to sink
> the genus to get rid of the name! If your name was valid, we would use it
> if the TAXON was valid, not sink the taxon because of the reasons you
> cite.  How silly you look.
> On Sun, 3 Feb 2002, Nick Longrich wrote:
> > 
> > >   No one has any business dealing with zoological nomenclature 
> > >who does not
> > >know about these.  In the case of Syntarsus Fairmaire, it appeared on
> > >schedule in both Zoological Record and the Neave catalog.  It was neither
> > >obscure nor difficult to check on.
> > 
> > ... on the other hand, one could argue that no one has any business 
> > dealing with paleontological nomenclature who does not know about the 
> > SVP member directory. The status of Raath's vital signs was neither 
> > obscure nor difficult to check on.
> >     In all honesty, it's my opinion that you've  got a lot of 
> > nerve, I don't see any hesitation to insult Raath's scholarship but 
> > there's no apology or humility displayed with respect to your own far 
> > from trivial errors in this mess, just more attacks on another's 
> > work. You act like paleontologists are being unreasonable, yet 
> > somehow I doubt that the entomological community would collectively 
> > "get a sense of humor and perspective" and find it terribly clever 
> > to, say, rename that giant, beautiful metallic blue South American 
> > butterfly with the wonderful name _Morpho_ to 
> > _Littlesquishythingyonthebottomofmyshoeus_.
> >     Gotta go with George- let's take _Coelophysis_ and sink this 
> > ugly-ass name.
> > 
> >