[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Stegosaur volume of Swiss Journal of Geosciences
Jay <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Okay, lets assume for now the material of S. armatus can be
> distinguished from Huayangosaurus, thus allowing stegosaurs
> to be placed in either Stegosauridae or not with S. armatus
> and H. taibaii being internal and external specifiers
> What if the issue is that the S. armatus material cannot be
> discriminated from that of Hesperosaurus, Dacentrurus,
> Loricatosaurus, Miragaia, Tuojiangosaurus, Wuerhosaurus etc?
> In this case, while the clade 'Stegosauridae' may continue
> to be upheld under your proposal, the clades Stegosaurinae,
> Dacentrurinae, and all the above genera would not if S.
> armatus was an internal specifier. Would all these taxa then
> be squeezed into 'Stegosaurus'?
Jay hit the nail on the head here. There is no point of having a genus if the
type species is invalid. As Jay points out, if _S. armatus_ is found to be not
diagnosable at the genus level, but only at a higher taxonomic level (e.g,
family or subfamily), then the entire concept of _Stegosaurus_ is destroyed.
After all, a genus is only as good as its type species. The entire point of a
type species is to literally typify the genus.
This is why, when a type species is declared a nomen dubium, there are only two
options: (1) retain the genus by designating of a new type species; (2) abandon
the genus that is typified by the type species. For _S. armatus_, option (1)
seems the most appropriate, as was done with _Iguanodon_ before it.