[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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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