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

RE: Alamosaurus as biggest North American sauropod

I thought it was fairly clear that "to either" meant in this hypothetical case, 
the T. rex holotype was either a member of species A or species B, but that we 
couldn't tell which.

As for your second comment, the hypothetical example was that current T. rex is 
actually two species (A and B above), and that the T. rex holotype couldn't be 
assigned to A or B with confidence (since it doesn't preserve the areas in 
which A differs from B).  So while the holotype definitely belongs to SOME 
species, it can't be referred to one of the two species in question to the 
exclusion of the other.

Mickey Mortimer

> Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2011 08:26:39 +0000
> From: keenir@hotmail.com
> To: mickey_mortimer111@msn.com; dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: 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.