[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 20:02:45 -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
> On Tue, 21/9/10, Anthony Docimo wrote:
> > So, can't we use the shared features of _Ceratopsidae_
> > members as an anchor?
> You mean an apomorphy-based clade?
I mean what I said.
> > well until the PhyloCode comes online and replaces Linnaean
> > taxonomy completely, we have to work with the Linnaean
> > system.
> Actually no, we don't. Publications that describe new genera or species
> routinely skip any and all ranks, and merely list clades in decreasing order
> of inclusiveness. For example (from Carr and Williamson, 2010):
> SYSTEMATIC PALEONTOLOGY
> SAURISCHIA Seeley, 1887
> THEROPODA Marsh, 1881
> TYRANNOSAUROIDEAWalker, 1964
> _BISTAHIEVERSOR SEALEYI_ gen. et sp. nov.
> Not a Linnaean rank in sight.
I thought ol' Carolus was the one who created the whole kingdom-to-species
and according to wikipedia...(see below)...Saurischia, Therapoda,
Tyrannosauroidae are all above the level of Genus. (if memory serves, you
don't mind genus and species, but just not anything above that)
T. rex (type)