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

Re: tiny-armed theropods



I agree that kind of instability wouldn't be ideal in the long run.
But as long as we're setting up a brand new code, it's a bit of a
shame that we can't go back and use the opportunity to correct some of
these kinds of errors in priority. There are numerous cases where a
long-entrenched name was overturned basically because an influential
author decided he liked a newer one better
(*cough*Tyrannosauridae*cough*). ;)

Of course, this kind of thing would only work if the code also
enforced the suggestion that definitions adhere to the original
contents as strictly as possible. Otherwise you've got somebody
dredging up an old disused coelopteran name and using it to usurp
Dinosauria or something just by changing the definition.

Matt

On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 9:31 AM, Mike Keesey <keesey@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 6:07 AM, Matthew Martyniuk <martyniuk@gmail.com> 
> wrote:
>> Except that the ICZN doesn't govern any names above family level. It
>> seems odd that a code would explicitly reject precedence of name over
>> precedence of definition. What's to stop a huge land rush to supplant
>> existing names and trump centuries old author priority in favor of
>> ones self?
>
> Any system can be abused. Let's say we do it your way. You define
> Hominini Gray 1825 as the human total group under the PhyloCode. For
> decades, people using RegNum and the PhyloCode follow suit. Then, one
> day, Dr. Troll realizes that Bimana Blumenbach 1779 is an older name
> for basically the same group. He publishes a slightly altered
> definition for the human total group under the PhyloCode. Voila,
> instant instability!
>
> And as you know, I think a "land rush" might not be that bad a thing:
> http://3lbmonkeybrain.blogspot.com/2010/03/great-phylocode-land-run.html
>
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 11:58 PM, Jaime Headden <qi_leong@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>  But this hasn't been the case for workers discussing therizinosaur total 
>> group
>
> There is no therizinosaur total group, because there are no extant
> therizinosaurs. (YMMV if you are living in the Mesozoic.)
>
> --
> T. Michael Keesey
> http://tmkeesey.net/
>