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

Re: New Dinosauricon Taxon Pages: _Therizinosauria_



From: "Jaime A. Headden"

>   Lest we misunderstand, the practical method of this is for fossils, not
> living species, which I wrote in the hinter end of the post.

 For extant species, this method would be a mess: for example, plants, you
have _Poa pratensis_, _Festuca pratensis_, _Cardamine pratensis_, and the 2
first are grasses... :-(

>   For fossil taxa, the effect of species nomenclature would be far less
> problematic,

Hmmm... You still have _Tyrannosaurus rex_, _Othnielia rex_, _Velociraptor
mongoliensis_, _Saurornithoides mongoliensis_, _Oviraptor mongoliensis_...

Why not to keep the binomial name, even if we consider the genus isn't
important? A case of "nomen conservandum" because people, even scientists,
are used to.

BTW, in the definition of "species" in paleontology, there's another
problem. Hybrids (mostly sterile) are known in extant birds. Now let's
suppose 2 "real" species of _Caudipteryx_, I mean imagine them alive. Let's
imagine hybrids occur, and now we've found a skeleton of what was a hybrid.
Of course we don't know it was a hybrid. We'll probably describe and name a
3rd species of _Caudipteryx_ intermediate between the 2 others, it's
logical.

Just my 2 cents.  Cheers - Aspidel.

ps: you can forward to the PhyloCode if it's worth doin'it.