[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: PLoS T.rex infection paper nomenclature question
2009/10/1 Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
>> From: owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu [mailto:owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu]
>> On Behalf Of Bruce Woollatt
>> Hi all;
>> In reading the list of specimens examined for this paper I
>> noted the use of the name Albertosaurus libratus instead of
>> Gorgosaurus libratus? Can I assume that the question of
>> synonymy is still unresolved? Has something since Currie's
>> 2003 splitsville paper on Alberta tyrannosaurs been published
>> disputing his findings, or is this just lingering lumpishness?
>> Any comments or clarifications are welcome.
> No, you cannot assume the question is resolved! In fact, these things don't
> "get resolved" as such.
> "Lumping" vs. "Splitting" per se do not have right or wrong answers; they
> are merely different philosophical approaches to dividing up the natural
> diversity into categories.
Except of course in the case of Brachiosaurus and the horribly
named(*) Giraffatitan -- for those two, the Platonic truth of the
matter is clear to see.
(*) No, Greg, I am not going to let that go :-)