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

RE: Stegosaur volume of Swiss Journal of Geosciences

  I don't see that flying. 

  The term "type" is a lot more ffective in a few more ways than 
"onomatophore," not the least due to its brevity. The term "type" also allows 
substantively more useful redefinition potential than a new, longer, 
multisyllabic word, and is more capable of combination with other words to 
permit subtypes, especially as compounds. It's easier to say, and likely easier 
to translate (so long as the people using it know what the word is being used 


Jaime A. Headden
The Bite Stuff (site v2)

"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)

"Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a
different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race
has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or
his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a Billion 

> Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 15:34:47 +0200
> From: david.marjanovic@gmx.at
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: Re: Stegosaur volume of Swiss Journal of Geosciences
> > the ICZN ideology of the type of Stegosaurus being the model species
> That's historical only. The type species does not have to be typical in
> any way under the ICZN. That's why Alain Dubois has been campaigning for
> years to replace the term "type" by "onomatophore" ( = "name-bearer").
> However, the ICZN does say or imply that if the name of the type species
> is a nomen dubium, so is the genus name, and the names of all eponymous
> taxa from subtribe to superfamily (grandfamily, gigafamily, whatever).