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

RE: Alamosaurus as biggest North American sauropod

> Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 22:48:13 -0800
> From: mickey_mortimer111@msn.com
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: RE: Alamosaurus as biggest North American sauropod

> Given those caveats, I agree the philosophy isn't necessarily stable and will 
> require revisions as more material is found. Maybe two or more taxa are 
> hiding in what we now call Tyrannosaurus rex, and in that case if the 
> holotype cannot be assigned to either species,
 Um, maybe it's just my dialect of English, but as far as I know, "to either" 
refers to the aforementioned number - in this case, "two or more".  So, either 
the holotype fits in one of the "two or more taxa"...or someone miscounted how 
many taxa there are to select from.
> it should indeed be declared a nomen dubium OR a neotype should be chosen 
> among more diagnostic specimens. This is simply the price of science never 
> presenting us complete knowledge. I'd like to know what your alternative 
> philosophy is. Keep what are apparently two species synonymous, and thus not 
> represent phylogeny with taxonomy? 
>Pretend that the T. rex holotype can be referred to one of the species, and 
>thus lie for the sake of stability?
 the holotype *has to* belong to a species.  if it doesn't, then not even 
Phylocode can save us.