[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!