[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: firstname.lastname@example.org
> To: email@example.com
> 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.