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

RE: Stegosaur volume of Swiss Journal of Geosciences



Tim Williams wrote-

> > but what you want
> > doesn't correspond to the rules that are currently dictated
> > by the body being petitioned.  We can argue all day over
> > which system we should have, but based on which system we DO
> > have, the choice for Stegosaurus armatus is clear.
>
> The system is broken. The system certainly sucks when it comes to coordinated 
> family-level taxonomy. There is no way that anyone should have to go 
> cap-in-hand to the ICZN asking that Tyrannosauridae be allowed to have 
> precedence over Deinodontidae. Experts in the field have already made their 
> choice, and I'm afraid Deinodontidae didn't make the cut. Let's move on.

I started writing a response to the rest of your message, but I think we've 
reached the point of diminishing returns.  My original point was that 
Carpenter's proposal to replace Stegosaurus' type species wasn't required or 
even recommended by the ICZN, which is the body he's petitioning.  Nor would it 
help the Phylocode, not that the ICZN should care.  Your basic response has 
been that the ICZN is broken, so we should ignore it when we want.  I don't 
think the ICZN will look favorably on such reasoning when it comes to voting on 
any proposal though.

As for the argument over whether to follow the ICZN for family-rank taxa, I 
think both of us have fully presented our philosophies and reasoning.  If you 
have anything new to add, feel free.  But barring that, I think I'm ducking out 
of this thread until the next nomen dubium paper comes out. ;)

Mickey Mortimer