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

RE: Stegosaur volume of Swiss Journal of Geosciences

The [SNIP] demon got its teeth into my last message, so here is the un-snipped 


I don't think we really need to make the case now that _armatus_ is 
non-diagnostic relative to non-_Stegosaurus_ genera.  This is because there is 
a non-zero possibility of this happening some time in the future. 

Therefore, it is best to discard a nomen dubium like _S. armatus_, rather than 
it being a potential source of instability in the future.  This is the crux of 
my argument, and why it is good practice to set aside nomina dubia when 
defining genera. 

In the same vein, _Iguanodon anglicus_ was sensibly replaced as the type 
species for _Iguanodon_ solely because _I. anglicus_ was a nomen dubium.  We 
did not first have to establish that _anglicus_ failed to form a unique clade 
with other _Iguanodon_ species, like _bernissartensis_ and _atherfieldensis_.  
Having a type species (_I. anglicus_) that was a nomen dubium was justification 
enough to designate a new type species for the genus _Iguanodon_.