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

RE: New Dinosauricon Taxon Pages: _Therizinosauria_



--- aegyptiacus@aol.com wrote:
> 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 to _Velociraptor_, and _mongoliensis_ (2) Osborn 1924 belongs
> > to _Saurornithoides_. You can see this here:
> > http://dino.lm.com/taxa/display.php?<name=Therizinosauroidea#definitions,
in
> > the 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?

It doesn't have to accompany it. Each species has a unique name and may be
referred to alone. Each taxon (clade or species) may be prefaced by one or more
taxa which include them, either by hypothesis (subjective) or by definition
(objective), but these lists do not constitute single names. Examples:

_mongoliensis_ (2) Osborn 1924 (1 full species name)

_rex_ Osborn 1905 (1 full species name)

_rex_ (1 abbreviated species name; can be used after full version is cited if
there are no species with homonymous abbrevations)

_Tyrannosaurus_ _rex_ Osborn 1905 (1 full clade name, 1 full species name)

_Saurornithoides_ _mongoliensis_ (1 full clade name, 1 abbreviated species
name)

_T._ _rex_ (1 abbreviated clade name, 1 abbreviated species name)

_Troodontidae_ _Saurornithides_ _mongoliensis_ (2 full clade names, 1
abbreviated species name)

_Dinosauria_ _Ornithischia_ (2 full clade names)

> I agree whith HP Mike
> Taylor, here, in that the unique name already exists : it's the unique
> combination of genus name+specific qualifier.

But these are unstable, unless you decide upon some objective means of which
genus name to make part of each species name. And in that case, the genus-based
praenomen will not have anything to do with the species' actual relationships;
names like _Megalosaurus wetherilli_ will be possible.

> 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?

That "commentary" (the citation) is part of the full name.

> 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 ;)

But species are not always guaranteed to stay in "their" genera (this case
aside). Non-type species move about all the time, which is good because it can
reflect the latest thinking, but is bad for trying to achieve stability with
"genus + species" combinations.

> It'll get things more complicated to understand for "normal" people. And
> Science is not just for scientists, is it?

As evidenced by the widespread usage of "T-Rex", I don't think "normal" people
care too much about such fineries of nomenclature. Whether _Triceratops_ is
made a clade or a genus or a species, kids will still call them "three-horns".

=====
=====> T. Michael Keesey <keesey@bigfoot.com>
=====> The Dinosauricon <http://dinosauricon.com>
=====> BloodySteak <http://bloodysteak.com>
=====> Instant Messenger <Ric Blayze>
=====

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com