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

Re: New papers in Geobios (and nomenclatoral gripe)

Thank you. :P

On 6/20/06, Jay <sappororaptor@yahoo.com> wrote:
here you are if you haven't already recieved it 6 times.

If you only recieved it 5 times or fewer, it's not enough.


--- Nick Gardner <nick.gardner@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> > invalid.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Tim
> >
> >
> >

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around