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

RE: Pterosaur Species List updates



If it's only thought to be the same as Yixianopterus because it's confamilial 
and from the same formation, then it seems safe to keep it as a separate nomen 
dubium.  It doesn't matter if an original diagnosis is valid or not, all that 
matters is if YOU can diagnose the holotype.  For instance, none of the 
original characters used to diagnose Sapeornis is valid anymore, but as long as 
I can diagnose it, it remains a valid taxon.  I know Peters is unpopular in the 
pterosaur community, but ignoring a properly erected taxon because of the 
author is no more professional than everyone who doesn't ever cite 
Scansoriopteryx, Omnivoropteryx and Cryptovolans.  If Avgodectes is a synonym 
of Yixianopterus, then you can consider petitioning the ICZN to prefer the 
authors that published in a more prestigious journal, examined their holotype 
firsthand, didn't misinterpret its morphology, etc..  So it seems the present 
question is- what characters does Avgodectes share with Yixianopterus that 
aren't found in other ornithocheirids?
 
Mickey Mortimer









_________________________________
i'm EMAILING FOR THE GREATER GOOD
Join me
http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Home/?source=EML_WLHM_GreaterGood


----------------------------------------
> Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 23:34:07 +0000
> From: mhanson54@comcast.net
> To: mickey_mortimer111@msn.com; j.falconnet@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: Pterosaur Species List updates
>
>
> Well, I was not the first to do it, and I really don't like doing it either, 
> I even split all the senior synonymous nomina dubia that many workers lump 
> into Pteranodon longiceps. A problem with Avgodectes is that according to 
> Unwin there is reason to suspect it is a juvenile Yixianopterus based on its 
> presence in the same formation and perhaps some characteristics that may 
> indicate the two are at least confamilial. At the same time, the 'diagnosis' 
> given for Avgodectes does not include any characters actually present in the 
> fossil. The source is perhaps even faulty enough to warrant a petition to the 
> ICZN. It is fortunate no publication since has used the name, but do we 
> really have to wait 100 years before we can stop tiptoeing around this issue?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Mortimer" 
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2009 11:24:53 PM GMT +01:00 Amsterdam / Berlin / Bern 
> / Rome / Stockholm / Vienna
> Subject: RE: Pterosaur Species List updates
>
>
> Jocelyn's reply was correct. You can't just get rid of nomina dubia by 
> synonymizing them with valid taxa, pesky or not. It would be like me 
> synonymizing Antrodemus with Allosaurus fragilis even though I can't 
> technically distinguish it from A. "jimmadseni" either. A. fragilis is WAY 
> more common than A. "jimmadseni", so it's far more likely to be fragilis. But 
> that's not a vaid taxonomic argument, so Antrodemus must stay a nomen dubium.
>
> Mickey Mortimer
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________
> i'm EMAILING FOR THE GREATER GOOD
> Join me
> http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Home/?source=EML_WLHM_GreaterGood
>
>
> ----------------------------------------
>> Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 16:13:21 +0000
>> From: mhanson54@comcast.net
>> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
>> Subject: Re: Pterosaur Species List updates
>>
>> Basically a nomen dubium has a non-diagnostic type specimen, but there is 
>> another species with a diagnostic type specimen which the nomen dubium may 
>> very likely if not almost certainly belong to. The species with the 
>> diagnostic type specimen cannot reasonably be synonymised with a species 
>> with a non-diagnostic type, but to spare us the insanity of dealing with a 
>> pesky nomen dubium always getting in the way it is lumped into the the 
>> species with the diagnostic type species. It is not my invention, there are 
>> others out there who have done this before and with great frequency. I know, 
>> it may be bending the rules quite a bit.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Michael Mortimer"
>> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
>> Sent: Sunday, 21 June, 2009 17:35:54 GMT +01:00 Amsterdam / Berlin / Bern / 
>> Rome / Stockholm / Vienna
>> Subject: RE: Pterosaur Species List updates
>>
>>
>> Mike Hanson wrote-
>>
>>> Avgodectes and its synonyms are now listed as synonymous with 
>>> Yixianopterus, though this requires some nomenclatural gymnastics, 
>>> Avgodectes is now a nomen dubium.
>>
>> How does this work? By definition, a nomen dubium cannot be a synonym, 
>> because in order to be a nomen dubium, it would have to be indistinguishable 
>> from at least two species, so couldn't be a definite synonym of either.
>>
>> Mickey Mortimer