[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Ceratopsine phylogeny questions
2009/10/5 David Marjanovic <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
>> Actually, the question of whether whether you want to consider them
>> different genera in addition is entirely left to your (yes, your)
>> taste is entirely left to your (yes, your) taste. It's clear that
>> David prefers to think of genera as _wholly_ arbitrary, but there are
>> plenty of workers who disagree. We should all remember that
>> vertebrate palaeontology, and perhaps dinosaur palaeontology in
>> particular, is very avant garde in this respect -- start talking
>> about genera being purely arbitrary on, say, an extant entomology
>> mailing list if you don't believe me.
> Well, what criteria (if any) do they use? How (if at all) do they define
> After all, the ICZN gives us full "taxonomic freedom" in this respect.
You'd have to ask them that. All I am saying is that those people are
out there, there are a lot of them, and (since they tend to be
old-timers) they are often in positions of authority and influence.
That doesn't (of course) mean that you have to agree with them; but it
does mean that you would be wise to be aware of their existence and
their opinions. And perhaps not to present your own as though they
represent a position that is universally held.
As for me ... I feel a paper coming on on this subject.