[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
> Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 18:46:24 -0700
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> To: email@example.com
> CC: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: RE: Platecarpus tympaniticus - how to analyze a nomen dubium
> Anthony Docimo wrote:
> > > *Ceratops*: has anyone even looked at the material in
> > > the last couple of decades?
> > Wait....if nobody's looked at the material, what has this
> > discussion been running on? (theory and ideals?)
> Don't panic Anthony. Penkalski and Dodson (1999) provide a fairly detailed
> description of the _Ceratops montanus_ type material. So does Ryan (2007).
> I'm not actually endorsing the view that _Ceratops montanus_ is a nomen
> dubium (though I suspect it is). My argument is that given the meager
> remains, _Ceratops montanus_ is a poor choice to name a family after. Both
> the ICZN Code and PhyloCode agree that the family Ceratopsidae must include
> _Ceratops montanus_. Thus, Ceratopsidae must be defined such that it includes
> _Ceratops montanus_ as a specifier. But because _Ceratops montanus_ is
> unlikely to contribute anything meaningful to a phylogenetic analysis,
> _Ceratops montanus_ is unlikely to be used to anchor any clade (including
here's my thought....
_Ceratopsidae_ was named for _Ceratops_, but now includes many other genera and
species - who were placed in _Ceratopsidae_ because their describers felt they
(the fossils) had features denoting their placement within _Ceratopsidae_.
So, can't we use the shared features of _Ceratopsidae_ members as an anchor?
(after all, unless we're going to find new homes for former _Ceratopsidae_
members, they'll all still be as related to one another as they were before --
whatever name they would go by, they would still have the same things
separating them from, say, protoceratops's side of the clade)
> Ergo, _Ceratops_ should NOT give its name to any family-level clades (e.g.,
> Ceratopsidae, Ceratopsinae, Ceratopsoidea).
> > Except none of us are precognitive - we don't know
> > that better species will be found. (we hope they will,
> > but its not a guarantee)
> Mike Taylor answered this better than I ever could, but it's worth
> emphasizing the point that suprageneric taxa should not be erected for a
> single genus. This used to be common practice, but it's totally unnecessary,
> and frequently unhelpful.
and the moral of the story: don't make new ones.
> > okay, let's say that, twenty years from now, I discover a
> > dinosaur that is as related to other Archosaurs as the
> > Pangolins are to other Mammalia.
> This assumes that ranks (phylum, class, order, etc) have some intrinsic
> quantitative value. But they don't, and never have.
that's why I phrased it as I did.
> Consider this: All those many bird "orders" (Struthioniformes, Falconiforme
> vialae. The Avialae is in turn a clade within the Maniraptora, which is a
> clade within the Theropoda, which is a clade within the Saurischia. Yet,
> Linnaean taxonomy lists Saurischia as an "order". Take-home message: Linnaean
> ranks are a world of pain.
well until the PhyloCode comes online and replaces Linnaean taxonomy
completely, we have to work with the Linnaean system.