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

RE: Expanding the Known Oviraptoverse

Yes. a species can be a LITU, a LIC canot be a species. I am specifically 
referring to the clade that includes ONLY a type species. It's specifiers would 
be explicitly a type species exclusive of all other type species (roughly the 
same as the species were it to be defined as a clade). This is only useful if 
we go around trying to argue that _species_ should be treated differently than 


  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 

> From: mike@indexdata.com
> Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 11:47:01 +0100
> Subject: Re: Expanding the Known Oviraptoverse
> To: qi_leong@hotmail.com
> CC: dinosaur@usc.edu
> On 26 July 2011 17:02, Jaime Headden <qi_leong@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >   Now, I want to note something particular that I did not want to do on my 
> > blogpost, because I do it ... to death. But I need to carefully reiterate 
> > it here lest it seem I am being unfair: On my blogpost, I argue that 
> > Sullivan et al. push the boundaries of recognizing taxa to raise taxonomy, 
> > which I think is fair of me to say. I think they also have that right, and 
> > will use the provided taxonomy. I will treat their nomenclature as a 
> > species contained by a least inclusive clade, especially a two-part 
> > uninomial, or binomen with species and "prenomen" qualifiers. Sullivan et 
> > al. use the term "genus," and while I disagree on the value and efficacy of 
> > rank-based nomenclature, the function of their nomenclature is useful. So 
> > let me be clear: I think that the function of the "genus" in this system is 
> > useful, for a few reasons, and I think those reasons are the same as that 
> > which Tim and Mickey both see it as -- I simply try to divorce the 
> > functional from the conceptual, where the functional is primarily based on 
> > language, and is effectively the same as the least inclusive clade rooted 
> > on a species, or a "prenomen" -- the conceptual is based on the "function" 
> > of a rank, and I think any attempt to salvage it will fail because of this 
> > baggage. Getting rid of the term and keeping the functionality is likely to 
> > be hard, but so will adoption of a ICZN-ICBN-free nomenclature system, and 
> > that's getting rolling.
> >
> >   So that's what I'm going to call these names, LICs (Least Inclusive 
> > Clades).
> I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're proposing here, but are
> you LICs different from the LITUs (Least Inclusive Taxonomic Units) of
> Pleijel and Rouse (2000)?
> Pleijel, Fredrik. & Rouse, Greg W. 2000. Least-inclusive taxonomic
> unit: a new taxonomic concept for biology. Proceedings of the Royal
> Society of London B, 267: 627-630.