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

Re: Troodon and other problems (was Andrew McDonald response re: European iguanodonts)



I think evidence which does not belong to currently known individuals
(even new teeth) requires to name a new organism in order to
differentiate it from the other organisms known in our discourse. If
later, with more complete remains, it turns that the little evidence
formerly used to erect a taxon, actually can be assigned to various
possible distinct taxa, the name can be just discarded. Why trying to
keep it? And why not using the name as long as it is useful (it is, as
long as it serves to differentiate only one taxon), regardless of
whether or not we later discard it? I can only mind the wish to have
one's name in a valid taxon as an answer.

2011/4/4 Jaime Headden <qi_leong@hotmail.com>:

>   Greg, you're advocating low level of material in general, and conflating 
> teeth into that, allowing you to dismiss *Ornithomimus velox*. I do not think 
> that unless you can positively show it lacks any potential autapomorphy or 
> autapomorphic suite, such an action is useful. This unfortunately coincides 
> with the illusion of only complete specimens are useful for taxonomy, as this 
> is certainly not the case (even 10% complete alvarezsaurs are popping up with 
> distinctive and sometimes autapomoprhic features of the forelimbs, hindlimbs, 
> or vertebrae, and of course Hone et al. have a paper in press on a new 
> tyrannosaurid based on a maxilla and partial (nearly complete) dentary and 
> little other material). How complete is "complete enough?" and how do you 
> qualify that?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jaime A. Headden
> The Bite Stuff (site v2)
> http://qilong.wordpress.com/
>
> "Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)