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

Re: New papers in Geobios (and nomenclatoral gripe)

While all the ongoing nomenclatural discussion is interesting, I'd
like to see a copy of the paper myself personally. If a PDF is
available, could someone send me a copy off-list, thank you~`!! :P

On 6/20/06, Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com> wrote:
Mickey Mortimer wrote:

>I agree with Chris.  This is not possible to do.  You can't just sink a
>named species into an unspecified unnamed "sp.", regardless of what
>Weishampel thinks.  It's like when authors try to sink whole genera into
>"Theropoda indet." and just pretend the genus and species names don't
>exist.  If Mochlodon suessi's holotype is referrable to Zalmoxes but not
>specifically diagnostic, there should be three species of Mochlodon - M.
>robustus, M. shqiperorum and M. suessi.  The latter could be the holotype
>yet still be specifically indeterminate.

I respectfully disagree.  If a species is declared to be a nomen dubium,
then this species has no taxonomic standing whatsoever.  If the species in
question is the type species for a genus, then this genus is also invalid.
However, the type material for a nomen dubium may be diagnostic at the genus
level.  If _Mochlodon suessi_ is not diagnostic at the species level, then
_M. suessi_ is a nomen dubium; and if _M. suessi_ is the type species for
_Mochlodon_, then _Mochlodon_ is an invalid genus.  But if the type material
can be referred to another genus (i.e., one that is valid), its generic
identity can be indicated as "_Zalmoxes_ sp." (as in this case).

There are other examples similar to the _Mochlodon_ situation.  Carpenter
(1990) regarded _Denversaurus schlessmani_ as a nomen dubium, although he
found the type material to be referrable to _Edmontonia_, as _Edmontonia_
sp.  He did not create the new combination _Edmontonia schlessmani_, because
the characters used to define the species _Denversaurus schlessmani_ were