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

RE: terminology



  *Daspeltosaurus* has had material referred to it from the Maastrichtian, 
namely from the the Upper Horseshoe Canyon Formation that lies across the 
boundary from the bulk of the Formation (Lower HCFm), which lies below it. The 
material may represent *Albertosaurus sarcophagus* rather, or may be a new 
taxon (I have not been keeping up on the issue of new "daspletosaurus" and 
their potential taxonomies, so this represents a large gap in my knowledge).

Cheers,

Jaime A. Headden
The Bite Stuff (site v2)
http://qilong.wordpress.com/

"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 
Backs)





----------------------------------------
> Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 19:07:25 -0600
> From: vultur-10@neo.tamu.edu
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: Re: terminology
>
> 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 
> with Manospondylus.
>
> 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.
>
> William Miller
>
> ---- Original Message -----
> From: "Jaime Headden" 
> To: vultur-10@neo.tamu.edu, "Dinosaur Mailing List" 
> Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 9:40:14 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
> Subject: RE: terminology
>
>
>   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).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jaime A. Headden
> The Bite Stuff (site v2)
> http://qilong.wordpress.com/
>
> "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 
> Backs)
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------
> > Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 04:58:12 -0600
> > From: vultur-10@neo.tamu.edu
> > To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> > 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: vultur-10@neo.tamu.edu, "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.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Jaime A. Headden
> > The Bite Stuff (site v2)
> > http://qilong.wordpress.com/
> >
> > "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 
> > Backs)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------
> > > Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 01:24:39 -0600
> > > From: vultur-10@neo.tamu.edu
> > > To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> > > 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*)
> >
>