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


> <While it is wisest, there is a simpler choice -- to call it  
> *Coelophysis*.   The only conspicuous difference from *C. bauri* is  
> that it lived later, after all.>  
>   No, there are more.  
Which is why I used the subjective term "conspicuous". :-)  
> Problematically, while Paul (1988, 1994) supported  
> including *S. rhodesiensis* into *Coelophysis*, you'd still  
> have two species. 
Why "problematically"? There are no homonymy problems with the species 
> At any point, the trees are identical and you're just using  
> ranks to differentiate use of names. This is ridiculous 
Of course. :-) 
> the species are distinct, so at which point 
> the names can reflect this, and  
> how far, is a matter of taste to the researcher. 
Bingo. Which is exactly why I can stubbornly ignore *Megapnosaurus* (even 
though I could hardly call myself a researcher so far), and why everyone 
can ignore me. :-) (And, of course, why the PhyloCode is a good thing. But 
"January 1, 200n" hasn't come yet.) 
Anyway, thanks for the real information! :-) 

+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more  http://www.gmx.net +++
Bitte lächeln! Fotogalerie online mit GMX ohne eigene Homepage!