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

RE: Andrew McDonald response re: European iguanodonts



I think there's a good reason for not using *Ceratopsidae*, as *Ceratops 
montanus* may not fall in the classic formulation *Ceratopsidae* is used for. 
If we associated *Ceratopsidae* to enforce inclusion of its nominative taxon, 
it increases or decreases from its classic (and _currently defined_ -- however 
useful that is) content, but the crap that is the holotype lacks this quality 
of surety. *Ceratopsidae* including only *Ceratops montanus* (it's strictest 
use) is wildly divergent from its classic formulation (and definition). This is 
in defiance of the concept of "stability" that taxonomy is supposed to be 
moving toward.

Cheers,

Jaime A. Headden
The Bite Stuff (site v2)
http://qilong.wordpress.com/

"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)


"Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a
different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race
has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or
his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a Billion 
Backs)





----------------------------------------
> Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 12:17:38 +0200
> From: david.marjanovic@gmx.at
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: Re: Andrew McDonald response re: European iguanodonts
>
> Before Mickey Mortimer wakes up...
>
> > Under these circumstances, either _T. formosus_ is a nomen dubium, or
> > a new holotype (neotype) would be designated in order to keep the
> > genus _Troodon_ as a valid taxon (as was done with _Iguanodon_). If
> > the former, we would go back to calling the family
> > Saurornithoididae.
>
> No, why?
>
> There's no reason to dump Ceratopsidae or Titanosauridae either.