[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: New Dinosauricon Taxon Pages: _Therizinosauria_
--- Nick Pharris <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Quoting "T. Michael Keesey" <email@example.com>:
> > 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.
> So don't try to make them stable.
It seems to me that stability of nomenclature (but flexibility of phylogeny) is
a good thing; do you think otherwise?
> The binomen can simply be the lowest two
> clades to which a given species belongs (OK, I'd want a redundant clade in
> there for species with no close relatives).
The "trivial" part would presumably represent a species, not a clade. (e.g.
_arctos_ Linnaeus 1758 is a species, but since it does not include certain
descendants, placed in _maritimus_ Phipps 1774, it is not a clade.)
And what happens when two homonymous species are referred to the same
daughterless clade? (Especially if there is disagreement about one of the
> I don't think there's any point in trying to make the species the unique
> identifier, when from the beginning species names were never meant to be
Simply because something was meant from the beginning does not mean it is
useful, or even rational. I do agree that any new system should have a fair
degree of "backwards-compatibility", but I don't see that the system I am
currently employing on my site is not "backwards-compatible".
=====> T. Michael Keesey <firstname.lastname@example.org>
=====> The Dinosauricon <http://dinosauricon.com>
=====> BloodySteak <http://bloodysteak.com>
=====> Instant Messenger <Ric Blayze>
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.