[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: tiny-armed theropods
> Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2011 12:13:00 +1100
> From: email@example.com
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: tiny-armed theropods
> Mickey Mortimer <email@example.com> wrote:
> > I don't know where you got the idea that nomina dubia aren't taxa or
> > organisms. Troodon formosus is a real animal, diagnostic
> > holotype or not. There was a living organism which the type tooth of
> > Troodon belonged to, and this individual can be included in a
> > phlogenetic analysis, regardless of whether additional individuals could be
> > assigned to its species.
> Of course the tooth of _Troodon formosus_ came from a real animal.
> I'm not suggesting it was carved out of stone by Cretaceous trolls.
> But if a genus is declared a nomen dubium, then it no longer denotes a
> real taxon. For example, the teeth named _Deinodon horridus_ (a nomen
> dubium) could belong to any number of tyrannosaurid species. So
> although the teeth came from a real individual, that individual does
> not represent a distinct taxon. Thus, it would serve no purpose to
> code the teeth and put them into a phylogenetic analysis. Yes, you
> *could* put _Deinodon_ into a phylogenetic analysis. But it's like a
> dog chasing a car: it can be done - but what's the point?
Let me make sure I understand this: the type tooth _Troodon formosus_ is not
the same as other known Troodon teeth (while being a likely member of the
...yet despite its differentness, we shouldn't call it distinct? Or we
shouldn't pay it any attention? (and if we're not going to bother with it, why
not just sell it and the other nomia dubia - we already know there's a market)
I think I lost track of the thrust of the argument a few posts back.