[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: New papers in Geobios (and nomenclatoral gripe)
David Marjanovic wrote:
No, this is not the same situation. The problem with *Iguanodon* was that
there was no way to tell whether *I. anglicus* belonged to the same genus
as *I. bernissartensis* and *I. atherfieldensis*.
Yes, because _I. anglicus_ (originally _I. anglicum_) was a nomen dubium!
Here's what Charig and Chapman (1998) said in their petition to the ICZN
"At present _Iguanodon anglicus_ Holl, 1829 is the valid type species for
_Iguanodon_ but this is known only from fragmentary and non-associated teeth
which show a complete lack of diagnostic characters." (p.99)
Charig and Chapman (1998) mention both _I. bernissartensis_ and _I.
atherfieldensis_ in their petition, but only in the context of mulling over
which of these should be put forward as as the new _Iguanodon_ type species.
In other words, there was a risk that the latter two species, which had
made a substantial career under the name *Iguanodon*, could end up not
belonging to *Iguanodon*. To avert this risk the ICZN designated *I.
bernissartensis* as the neotype of *Iguanodon*.
Given that the original type species (_I. anglicus_) was based on
specifically non-diagnostic material, this was a great risk indeed. Without
a taxonomically valid type species, NO other species could be assigned to
_Iguanodon_. Furthermore, the current uncertainty surrounding exactly how
many species actually belong in the genus _Iguanodon_ would have added a
further complication, if _I. anglicus_ had remained as the type species.
P.S. For the benefit of "No Way", this is a discussion on NOMENCLATURE not