[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Ceratopsine phylogeny questions
Although I am with David on this, under your pragmatic point of view,
it seems that what would be done is asking some "popes" if they like
we erecting a new genus (or species) given a number of differences
with taxa referred to other genera (or species), and then follow their
Or, as David says, do what you want and then correct your choice when
you receive the criticisms of the reviewers. One wants to get his work
published, so would give up with things one thinks are arbitrary.
2009/10/5 Mike Taylor <email@example.com>:
> 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.