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

Re: The Holy of Holies... Dinosauria II

I would like to add that this is a problem for some of
us who have a non-professional interest in such
creatures as well.  It has always annoyed me that so
few books on prehistoric animals make any mention of
them beyond the genus level.  Even if in the future a
species is synomized with another in the same genus or
another genus, at least if you have the species name
you can make the connection more easily as to what the
image or text is talking about.


"Jonathan R. Wagner"
<jonathan.r.wagner@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
By going using generic epithets to refer to 
species, we actually EXPAND this problem: in
traditional (Linnean) 
nomenclature, ambiguity actually increases at higher
taxonomic ranks. In 
discussing the choice of names to convert for species
under the PhyloCode, 
we have already touched on some of these problems
(e.g., is this genus 
really monotypic?). By adopting a generic epithet
without a species name, 
you would remove a piece of information that actually
INCREASES precision 
of information retrieval from the literature. For
example, cautious 
taxonomists have often referred specimens to Genus sp.
(which, of course, 
is problematic for monotypic genera), but which adds a
layer of hedging 
that you propose to eliminate. Without knowing your
particular set of 
conventions, the person to whom you are speaking can
only unequivocally 
consider one specimen to belong to the group you are
discussing whether you 
use a species name (the type of the species) or a
genus name (the type of 
the type species). By using a genus name, you greatly
expand the list of 
possible specimens you are including, and therefore
the ambiguity of your 
At 11:41 AM 10/15/04, you wrote:
>Quoting "Jonathan R. Wagner" :
> > >The third possibility is a two genus solution a
la Wright and Lull, with
> > >Edmontosaurus regalis and Anatosaurus annectens
and Anatosaurus copei
> > >(assuming the phylogeny is indeed regalis +
(annectens + copei)).
> >
> > Or, for those of us who hate genera, nested
clades: Edmontosaurus including
> > regalis and Anatosaurus, Anatosaurus including
annectens and copei.
> > Personally, I think this is a little much, but
that's because I hate 
> genera.
>Or just call them Edmontosaurus, Anatosaurus, and
Anatotitan. Screw the 
>Nick Pharris
>Ph.D. Candidate
>Department of Linguistics
>University of Michigan