[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:
>   The binomen as offered is the species name, not the species name plus
> some other name that can be changed. The binomen is now the label for
> species, and it is the concept of the "genus" that is removed. The name
> stays and is transfered to the species. It's been done before (Flynn et
> al., JVP _20_), its hardly an alien and destructive force. The authors
> refer to the whole complex (prefering n. tax.) as a single structure,
> where plenty of nominative information can be contained in the binomen
> _species_. Forget the genus-species complex. Its _species_ only. This is
> the proposition. All species get their own "prima nomen", so that
> *Tarbosaurus bataar*, however its related, is retained unless the species
> (*Tarbosaurus bataar*, not *bataar*) is synonymous with species of another
> taxon.

Except that this species was originally named as _Tyrannosaurus bataar_! So,
you see, it would have to remain _Tyrannosaurus bataar_, even though it would
be closer to (synonymous with?) _Tarbosaurus efremovi_ than to _Tyrannosaurus
rex_. And, if the "pygmy tyrant" is indeed a separate species, we could even
have a situation like this:

--+--+--_Tarbosaurus efremovi_
  |  `--_Tyrannosaurus bataar_
  `--+--_Gorgosaurus lancensis_
     `--_Tyrannosaurus rex_


> Then the whole name is subsumed, prima nomen and secunda nomen
> both. *Istiodactylus latidens*, if synonymous with *Ornithostoma seeleyi*,
> becomes *Ornithostoma seeleyi*.

But renaming it to _Istiodactylus latidens_ would have been invalid in the
first place, since it was already named _Ornithocheirus latidens_.

>   *Ornithomimus minuts* does not belong to *Ornithomimus velox*, and so
> the name can be altered so that it is shown to be identical ... or it is
> synonymized with another taxon.

Lost me ... altered to what?

> If no species is synonymous in this regard, each species is unique and the 
> name follows suit.

I agree that the system would work in theory, but I think people are too used
to the prima nomen indicating its relationship. e.g., people would expect
_Megalosaurus bucklandi_ (a basal tetanuran),  _Megalosaurus saharicus_ (the
original name of _Carcharodontosaurus saharicus_, an allosauroid carnosaur) and
_Megalosaurus wetherilli_ (the original name of _Dilophosaurus wetherilli_, a
basal avepod) to be closely related.

Of course, you could create the binomials based on prevalent usage instead of
original usage, but this is subjective and could lead to arguments. Which is
more prevalent, _Paranthropus boisei_ or _Australopithecus boisei_?
Furthermore, this would not account for such "mistakes" as _Megalosaurus
saharicus_ and _Megalosaurus wetherilli_ being made in the future.

Better, I think, to abandon the concept of binomials, and let species stand on
their own. If the citation is part of the full name, they will be unique and
permanent (e.g. _rex_ Osborn 1905). After being mentioned with the citation,
they may later be abbreviated by listing just the main part of the name (e.g.
_rex_), or listed with a containing clade (e.g. _Tyrannosaurus_ _rex_).

This seems the best idea to me, for now, anyway.

=====> 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.