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

RE: New Dinosauricon Taxon Pages: _Therizinosauria_



--- "Jaime A. Headden" <qilongia@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Mike Keesey (mightyodinn@yahoo.com) wrote:
> 
> >_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)
(Note: I should have said "if there are no species with homonymous abbrevations
*in the same text*".)

>   Is this not an abbreviated address, rather than the abbreviated
> "species" name? The name "rex" is the species, or part thereof, and
> applying the authorship with an integer flies in the face of a "species"
> name, which intends to describe the organism, not who described it, when,
> and in relation to what.

By that criterion, all species names named after people (_osborni_, _browni_,
_horneri_, _nedegoapeferima_, _ostrommaysorum_ etc.) should be stricken from
the record (unless, of course, they are supposed to be reminiscent of that
person....)

And even if it did "fly in the face" of tradition, so what? Phylogenetic
taxonomy often "flies in the face" of tradition (but always for a good reason).

> <names like _Megalosaurus wetherilli_ will be possible.>
> 
>   Only if species revert to the _original_ "genus" they were referred to
> as. It could as easily be "Tabularasa wetherilliorum." I don't think
> original "generic" reference validates any future reference.

What criterion, then? There must be some logic to it.

> One would think, unless synonymous, a distinction of any species or "genus"
> should be considered different from any other. The very spirit of recognition
> of different species. Unless all taxa are *Rutella* as the first praenomen
> (not a genus yet, there were none). *Biota* would then be a junior
> objective synonym, as would all other taxa. No need to define separate
> names.

Ya lost me.

> <That "commentary" (the citation) is part of the full name.>
> 
>   How so? Its part of the citation, as is the name. Citation = name,
> author, date.

Literature citation.

> Sequence of dating may also be added relative to another,
> but the name, as most would agree I think, consists only of the
> appellation of Latin, Greek, or otherwise recognizable "code" language for
> the species as historically recognized. The citation is, as most journals
> show and some recognize, included at the first mention of the name, and
> then not used successively except during taxonomic discussion.

Same in my pages.

> Referring to the citation as the name is rather pointless, as I see the
> structure.

Semantics. If you want, you could say that the system I am using allows for
homonymous species but requires a citation for the first mention of any -- same
result in the end.


=====
=====> 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