[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: ICZN & PhyloCode (was RE Stegosaur volume of Swiss Journal of Geosciences
> Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 19:32:16 -0700
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> To: email@example.com
> CC: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: RE: ICZN & PhyloCode (was RE Stegosaur volume of Swiss Journal of
> On Mon, 20/9/10, Anthony Docimo wrote:
> (BTW, your messages aren't in plain text, so they're being truncated.)
> > > Because _Deinodon_ is known only from teeth.
> > how many diagnostic characters can you glean from teeth?
> In the case of _Deinodon_, at the level of genus: None. Hence _Deinodon
> horridus_ is a nomen dubium.
if _Deinodon_ has no diagnostic characters, how do you know it was _Deinodon_?
> I would use the same analogy for the ICZN: useful for some things (like
> naming genera and species), but a hindrance to others (like naming families,
> and coordinated taxa).
> > and people have gotten used to Ceratopsidae.
> People had also "gotten used to" Titanosauridae. Now it's hardly ever used.
(i didn't get that memo)
> > you want us to use Tyrannosaurus/Tyrannosauridae instead of
> > Deinodon/Deinodontidae _because of how it feels_...yet you want us to
> > use a different yardstick for Ceratops.
> No, I want to use Tyrannosauridae because, from an entirely subjective
> perspective, _Tyrannosaurus_ is an excellent genus to name a family after.
Barnum and his contemporaries called it _Deinodon_.
clearly their subjective judgement was in favor of _Deinodon_, not in favor of
so why is your subjective judgement better than that of Barnum?
> > if I ever get a TARDIS, I'm going back and napalming the early
> > ceratopsians and protoceratopsians until no bones remain. problem
> > solved.
> The "problem" can be solved by less drastic actions than time travel and
> osteological extirpation.