[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 23:10:05 +0100
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> To: email@example.com
> CC: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: Princeton Field Guide
> On 30 September 2010 23:03, Anthony Docimo wrote:
> >> 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.
here's what I thought you had said: that it can't be an appropriate way to do
wholesale taxonomic reassignments _because_ it lacks numbers, diagnoses, etc.
...so I pointed out the sentance which preceeded it. (sometimes we skip a line
or sentance - its part of being human)
((want to be sure we're on the same page))
> >> > 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.
isn't that dangerously close to splitting?
> 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.
but if genera don't really exist, then wouldn't only the *docimoi* part
remain, when it falls out/into the phylogeny? it would stop being *Novodiplos*
rather like T.rex isn't called by its old genus name (for want of a better
example on my part), but the species would remain the same.
...at least, if I've understood prior discussions in this forum.
(ps: thank you)