[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: New Dinosauricon Taxon Pages: _Therizinosauria_
T Mike Keesey wrote :
<I also added a way to distinguish between homonymous species named <in the same
<paper. Each gets a positive integer based on the order in which <they were
<defined. Thus (if I am not mistaken), _mongoliensis_ (1) Osborn <1924 belongs
<_Velociraptor_, and _mongoliensis_ (2) Osborn 1924 belongs to
<_Saurornithoides_. You can see this here:
<second definition's formula.
Well, MHO here.
If the species name has to be accompanied wth the genus name (albeit under a
form or another), why not keep the actual system? I agree whith HP Mike Taylor,
here, in that the unique name already exists : it's the unique combination of
genus name+specific qualifier. You don't imagine people will understand that
several animals looking strikingly different (and being in fact totally
different) will bear the same name with just a commentary (that no one reads
completely) specifying the difference? You'd say : this is a Rex, of the
Tyrannosaur genus, the same as if all Johns were simply called John, with
something like "of the Smith family" to make sure people will understand whom
you're talking about. Simpler to say John Smith (maybe a bad example, here ;)
It'll get things more complicated to understand for "normal" people. And
Science is not just for scientists, is it?