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

Re: Dinosaur a tecnical term; fish is not (was RE: Fish with milk (Sheesh spinoff))

> But as I understand it, not being a taxonomist
> myself, we no longer  
> require that the type species is the most "typical"
> of the genus.  

Common fallacy - it never really was like that. The
type taxon is a label-bearer, nothing more and nothing
less. The initial idea may have been to choose type
taxa that are "typical", but it was quickly abandoned
as uttlery unworkable b/c it turned out that it could
not be foreseen which taxa would eventually come to be
placed in a genus and thus it was impossible to tell
whether one of the known ones was "typical".

Neither have holotypes to be in any way "typical".
They, too, are something to which the name is
permanently attached (barring complete invalidation,
which is not simply placing-into-synonymy).

So "Limnornis" as described by Kessler & Jurcsak in
1984 was a number of dinosaur (possibly avian) bones
and the holotype was a partial femur. However,
Limnornis is already in use (for some SAm suboscines)
and hence the genus name had to be replaced. They
ultimately had to settle for Palaeocursonis, because
the Eurolimnornis they originally would have wanted
was validly described by them - and attached to a
humerus from their "Limnornis" material, which turned
out to be from another critter.



Der frühe Vogel fängt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail: