[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Princeton Field Guide
> Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 22:29:43 +0100
> From: email@example.com
> To: VRTPALEO@usc.edu
> CC: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: Princeton Field Guide
> On 30 September 2010 21:13, wrote:
> > Now that the field guide is out and about some comments.
> > The book is a POPULAR work entirely in the style of a field guide for birds
> > or mammals. So it does not include specimen numbers, diagnoses or the like
> > and I don’t want to hear about it.
> Then how can it possibly be an appropriate venue to do wholesale
> taxonomic reassignments?
he said "popular" and "in the style of a field guide".
if I'm reading _Amphibians of North Carolina_, it isn't to see which
supragenus the lungless salamanders are in this week.
> > But dinopaleo has gotten into the bad habit
> > of usually making almost every species into its own genus. This is illogical
> > considering that many modern bird and mammals contain large numbers of
> > species – Varanus (now formally includes Megalania), Panthera, Felis, Canis,
> > Vulpes, Cervus, Tragelaphus, Cephalophus, Ovis, Gazella, Macropus,
> > Balaenoptera,
> > Buteo, Falco, Anas.
> This is of course because dinosaurs are not modern birds or animals.
> When taxa are known only from incomplete remains -- sufficient to
> distinguish them from all other named taxa but not sufficient to yield
> a robust phylogeny -- it's just more convenient to assign a name that
> won't have to change when the phylogeny does.
well, then I assume you will hold off from making any publications until the
phylogeny is changed for the last time?