[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Princeton Field Guide
On 30 September 2010 23:03, Anthony Docimo <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> 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.
Unless I'm misunderstanding you, that is pretty much the point I was making.
>> > 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?
No. But any new dinosaur taxa that I raise will be in new
monospecific genera unless I am really, really certain that I know
what they are most closely related to. I wouldn't want to name a new
Diplodocus species D. docimoi and then find that it seems to be more
closely related to Barosaurus, and have to rename it B. docimoi.
Better just call it Novodiplos docimoi, and its name can stay the same
wherever it falls out in the phylogeny.