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

RE: Platecarpus tympaniticus - how to analyze a nomen dubium



That's not how nomina oblita work. I refer you to Matt Martynuick's DinoGoss: 
http://dinogoss.blogspot.com/2010/09/what-is-nomen-oblitum-not-what-you.html, 
who summarizes past mistakes from this list on what a nomen oblitum IS.

Cheers,

Jaime A. Headden
The Bite Stuff (site v2)
http://qilong.wordpress.com/

"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 
Backs)





----------------------------------------
> Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 11:34:05 +0200
> From: david.marjanovic@gmx.at
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: Re: Platecarpus tympaniticus - how to analyze a nomen dubium
>
>
> *Deinodon*: isn't Deinodontidae a nomen oblitum anyway? If nobody has
> used it for 100 years (and remember, it's 2010 already, and
> *Tyrannosaurus* was named in 1905), it's gone, it doesn't compete for
> synonymy (and I think even for homonymy) anymore.
>
> *Ceratops*: has anyone even looked at the material in the last couple of
> decades?
>
> > Taxonomy is not just about compiling lists. It's a way of
> > classifying real species. If we cannot demonstrate that _S. armatus_
> > was a separate species (because the type material cannot be
> > distinguished from diagnostic _Stegosaurus_ species) then the taxon
> > is toast. P here's no good evidence that this ever represented a
> > real species, then let it go.
>
> "Real", or "species"?
>
> You imply a morphological species concept here (or, more likely, all of
> them). What if I happen to prefer a "biological" or ecological one? Then
> I'm out of luck, because such concepts cannot be applied to stegosaurids
> as we know them today (and indeed to almost all extinct organisms). In
> that case, I can either pretend that some morphological concept or other
> is a good approximation of whatever I prefer, but then I'd be lying to
> myself*; or I can stop worrying about species and talk about
> morphological LITUs** instead. _Except_ that the ICZN doesn't let me
> choose the second option. It stupidly insists that every organism that
> is to be classified at all must be referred to a species. The PhyloCode
> can't come soon enough.
>
> * Depending on the species concept, there are from 101 to 249 endemic
> bird species in Mexico. A factor of almost 2.5.
> ** Least Inclusive Taxonomic Units -- the smallest recognizable clades.