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

RE: volume of Swiss Journal of Geosciences



 
 
my computer failed to send this; sorry.
 
 
----------
  

--Forwarded Message Attachment--
From: keenir@hotmail.com
To: qi_leong@hotmail.com; dinosaur.mailing.list@listproc.usc.edu; 
tijawi@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: Stegosaur volume of Swiss Journal of Geosciences
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 02:17:53 +0000
 
 
 
 
 

> Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2010 13:56:25 -0600
> From: qi_leong@hotmail.com
> To: keenir@hotmail.com; Dinosaur.Mailing.List@listproc.usc.edu
> Subject: RE: Stegosaur volume of Swiss Journal of Geosciences
> 
> 
> Anthony Docimo wrote:
> 
> <> just a hunch....because that's how it was created in the first place?
> 
> [...]
> 
> then shouldn't our default assumption (at least 
> until proven otherwise) be that _Ceratopsidae_ counts _Ceratops_ as a 
> member?>
> 
>   1. Under the philosophical framework of phylogenetic taxopnomy, one should 
> (or be forced to) include the nominative taxa in one's containing clades. 
> Always.
> 
>   2. BUT ... when stability tends to conflict with usage, and the nominative 
> form may fall outside the clade named for it, this tends to involve a large 
> conflict of content. *Ceratops montanus* may not be a member of Ceratopsidae 
> as it has been used (the clade containing the most recent common ancestor and 
> all descendants thereof of *Chasmosaurus belli* and *Centrosaurus apertus*). 
> If so, the usage implies otherwise.
 
 Could we say "okay, this was one of Marsh's mistakes - we'll use it as an 
anchor, and we won't make his mistake ourselves." and leave it at that?
 
 otherwise...what else do we have to rename?   (Basileosaurus(sp) was named 
before they realized it was a whale...and the Iguanadon family are not lizards
> 
> I've not seen this latter approach suggested (TMK), but it means simply 
> ignoring previous taxonomy and kinda starting over from scratch, as all other 
> taxonomic inclusive terms within this area of the tree involve ICZN mandated 
> suffixes, and that IS one of the issues causing people conniptions when it 
> comes to using *Ceratopsidae*.
 
ah.
 
 
> Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2010 16:36:52 -0700
> Subject: RE: Stegosaur volume of Swiss Journal of Geosciences
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, 18/9/10, Anthony Docimo <keenir@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > > But how do we know that Ceratopsidae encompasses _Ceratops_?
> >
> > just a hunch....because that's how it was created in the first place?
 
> Currently, every phylogenetic definition that has been proposed for 
> Ceratopsidae has pointedly excluded _Ceratops_, the name-giving taxon. 
> Instead, these definitions have included well-known genera such as 
> _Triceratops_ and _Centrosaurus_ (Dodson et al., 2004; Sereno, 2005), or 
> _Triceratops_ and _Pachyrhinosaurus_ (Sereno, 1998).
 
 so we call it a historical artifact.  nomeclature is full of them   (ie, 
"marsupial mice")
 
 
> > then shouldn't our default assumption (at least until proven otherwise) 
> > be that _Ceratopsidae_ counts _Ceratops_ as a member?

> No; we shouldn't be *assuming* anything. We should be hypothesizing, then 
> testing. The hypothesis is that _Ceratops_ is a member of the least inclusive 
> clade (Ceratopsidae) that includes _Triceratops_ and _Centrosaurus_. Until 
> this hypothesis is tested, it should not be simply assumed that _Ceratops_ is 
> a ceratopsid. 
 
 and until the results of the final tests come in?  no offense, but I doubt you 
can stop everyone from talking about _Ceratops_ and _Ceratopsidae_ until the 
last test is done.
 
its like "innocent until proven guilty" -- we should assume it *is* a 
Ceratopsid *until* proven it is not.