[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
But Daspletosaurus isn't Maastrichtian, and Tarbosaurus (even if it isn't
Tyrannosaurus, which it may be) lived on a different continent. It's highly
unparsimonious to think there was a separate late-Maastrichtian giant
tyrannosaur in North America.
I agree that the consensus is to treat it as a nomen dubium; but that is, as
you say, just a justification; nobody really wants to replace Tyrannosaurus
But it doesn't help science to have extra taxa laying around that clearly
represent the same biological species (or whatever), it just adds confusion. So
ideally the ICZN would do something about Manospondylus, so that we could
actually treat them as synonymous without employing the "well, _maybe_ it's
something else" dodge.
---- Original Message -----
From: "Jaime Headden" <email@example.com>
To: firstname.lastname@example.org, "Dinosaur Mailing List" <email@example.com>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 9:40:14 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: RE: terminology
Â The current opinion is that the holotype of *Manospondylus gigas*, an eroded
pair of dorsal centra, are similar to that of *Tyrannosaurus rex*, but may also
compare well to other taxa (*Tarbosaurus bataar*) as well as *Daspletosaurus*
spp. This makes it difficult to _prove_ that *Tyrannosaurus rex* and
*Manospondylus gigas* are synonymous. The general consensus (that I am familiar
with) has been to treat the type as nondiagnostic, and the taxon as a _nomen
dubium_ (if these things had any value other than justification for not
considering them useful for competing for priority).
Jaime A. Headden
The Bite Stuff (site v2)
"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
> Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 04:58:12 -0600
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: terminology
> What do you mean by "If *Manospondylus* and *Manospondylus gigas* ever came
> up in contention for priority"; are they not in that situation now? By far
> the most-parsimonious hypothesis is Manospondylus = Tyrannosaurus; and so the
> correct name is most probably Manospondylus.
> Chances are, the issue will simply continue unaddressed.
> William Miller
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jaime Headden"
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org, "Dinosaur Mailing List"
> Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 2:41:04 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
> Subject: RE: terminology
> If *Manospondylus* and *Manospondylus gigas* ever came up in
> contention for priority over *Tyrannosaurus* and *Tyrannosaurus rex*
> (respectively), you can bet your sweet [arse] that the governing bodies
> of appropriate appeal at the time (ICZN now, maybe PhyloCode as well
> down the road) will be petitioned to set aside the former two names to
> preserve the latter two. The other options available (to ignore as
> useless the former two names, or redesignation of a type specimen and
> thus reorganization of what the former two names refer to) are likely
> and unlikely (respectively) to be employed.
> Jaime A. Headden
> The Bite Stuff (site v2)
> "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
> > Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 01:24:39 -0600
> > From: email@example.com
> > To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > Subject: Re: terminology
> > As for Manospondylus = Tyrannosaurus, the criteria seem to have been met --
> > at least I can't find anything after 1901 treating Manospondylus as valid*,
> > and cetainly Tyrannosaurus has been used far more than 25 times in the past
> > 50 years -- but something needs to be published saying so, and it hasn't.
> > *Edward Troxell's 1921 paper "The Nature of a Species in Paleontology, and
> > a New Kind of Type Specimen" comes close, since he recognizes Manospondylus
> > = Tyrannosaurus and that M. was first, but he seems to say that
> > Tyrannosaurus is the right name and that the principle of replacing names
> > based on scrappy bones with those based on good remains should be generally
> > applied.
> > William Miller
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Matthew Martyniuk"
> > To: "j falconnet"
> > Cc: "Dinosaur Mailing List"
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 6:22:06 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
> > Subject: Re: terminology
> > Just a nitpick (don't want to deviate too far from the topic),
> > _Dynamosaurus_ was sunk in favor of _Tyrannosaurus_ when Osborn acted
> > as first revisor and chose the later as the senior synonym, as
> > required by the ICZN when two synonymous taxa are named in the same
> > publication. If you meant _Manospondylus_, contrary to popular belief
> > no ICZN action has ever been taken or requested, nor is the name a
> > nomen oblitum under the current code. If _M. gigas_ is considered
> > synonymous with _T. rex_, the former is the correct name. See my post
> > on this here:
> > http://dinogoss.blogspot.com/2010/09/what-is-nomen-oblitum-not-what-you.html
> > Matt
> > On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:25 PM, Jocelyn Falconnet
> > wrote:
> > > Fortunately, you have three possibilities if you encounter a nomen
> > > dubium threatening an old-established (='stable') taxonomy:
> > > 1) request the deletion of this taxon to the ICZN (e.g.,
> > > *Dynamosaurus*, *Rioarribasaurus colberti*)