[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: New Dinosauricon Taxon Pages: _Therizinosauria_
--- Mike Taylor <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Yeah, but you missed the _true_ reason
> - They are cool. :-)
Of *course* they're cool; they're dinosaurs!! :)
[kind words snipped out of modesty]
> * A technical one (which I think I've mentooned to you before): using
> Mozilla 1.3a on Debian Linux 3.0 (Woody), the links change to an
> illegible dark-blue-on-black when I mouse over them.
Hmm .. you're right. I actually hadn't noticed. I'll look into it, but it's not
too major an issue, as you can still read them when the cursor is elsewhere.
> * Your use of species name alone in the Formula section (though
> fortunately not in the essays) is ... questionable. I recognise
> that this is a Phylocode thing, but it's not as though the code
> mandates that you may not use The Names Formerly Known As Genera: it
> merely waves its hands about how a way will need to be found to
> represent species. I've argued before that the moast pragamtic way
> is using a two-word specification consisting of the Clade Name
> Formerly Known As Genus followed by the species name, like this:
> _Erlikosaurus andrewsi_. I still think this is by far the most
> pragmatic way to go. (Just because the code saus that genera are
> not "significant" does not mean that we can't still use them as
The problem with that system is that we are then stuck with misleading species
names: _Ornithomimus minutus_ (an alvarezsaurid), _Ornithodesmus latidens_ (a
pterosaur), etc. ... and _Homo troglodytes_, if I'm not mistaken!
Unless of course, you want to be able to change the first part of the species
name from its original designation as appropriate for its hypothesized
relationships. But then we have impermanent species names!
I decided the best way (for now, at least) to achieve permanent, unique species
names would be to incorporate the original citation into the name. Genera have
been provisionally converted to a special type of stem-defined clade (see
In the definitions, I *could* list the clade that the species are currently
assigned to, but then sometimes when a species moves to a different part of the
tree, that will change, and the definition will appear to change, although it
I *could* list the "generic clade" which it was originally attributed to, or
the "generic clade" it was listed under at the time of definition, but this
could prove misleading, as shown above.
In the end, it is the species which matters, not the taxa it's been attributed
to. So, for definitions, I decided to cite just the species, nothing more.
All of this is provisional, of course, but after much thought it seems to me
the best way for now.
=====> T. Michael Keesey <email@example.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.