[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: New papers in Geobios (and nomenclatoral gripe)
Tim, it seems to me that you're invoking an ICZN rule (validity of a
genus depends on validity of its type species) and then trying to
apply a concept which is *external* to the ICZN (the concept of
Let me reiterate something: under the ICZN a "dubious" name is an
available name, simply because the ICZN does not cover any concept of
"dubiousness". _Hadrosaurus foulkii_ and _Mochlodon suessi_ are
*available* names under the ICZN. They are not nomina nuda, nomina
oblita, or preoccupied. (Nor does anyone I know of even consider them
junior subjective synonyms.)
Now, under the ICZN, _Mochlodon_ is simply defined as the genus that
includes _M. suessi_, so you can't objectively say whether it's a
synonym of _Zalmoxes_. But if you yourself subjectively consider the
group that includes the type specimens of _Z. robustus_ and _M.
suessi_ to be a "genus", then the name for that group has to be
_Mochlodon_, by ICZN rules. Never mind that we can't tell whether the
species are synonyms or not--the ICZN doesn't care.
I'm getting this impression of the phylogeny:
`--+ [incertae sedis] M. suessi (?=Z. robustus; ?=Z. shqiperorum)
Under the ICZN you have two options here:
| [incertae sedis] M. suessi (?=M. robustus; ?=M. shqiperorum)
|--M. robustus (=Zalmoxes robustus)
`--M. shqiperorum (=Zalmoxes shqiperorum)
`--+ [incertae sedis] M. suessi (?=Z. robustus; ?="Z." shqiperorum)
..and which one you pick is totally up to your personal tastes.
The _Iguanodon_ example doesn't apply here because it's a special
case. The ICZN invalidated _I. anglicum_ by fiat. Perhaps they could
do so for _Mochlodon_ and _M. suessi_ as well, but they haven't, yet.
T. Michael Keesey