[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: tiny-armed theropods
> Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 10:52:50 +1100
> From: email@example.com
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: tiny-armed theropods
> Mickey Mortimer <email@example.com> wrote:
> > Similarly, your closing paragraph exemplifies why we end up talking past
> > each other. I argue about what the current rules are, while
> > you argue about how you would like things to be, as if that has any force
> > in the decisions we make about nomenclature and
> > taxonomy.
> But Mickey... the current rules are not being practiced as it is.
So...your argument now is "if some laws are being ignored, we should get a
whole new legal system, because it would be too hard to fix things" ? I very
much hope I'm misreading your argument.
> uses Deinodontidae, or Atlantosauridae, or Podokesauridae, or
> Ornithopsidae, etc etc, any more? When it comes to family-level taxa,
> the ICZN is already being ignored, because some of its requirements
> are simply not practical.
that reminds me - what is the type specimen of _Dinosauria_? surely after
over a century of new discoveries, it is even less secure than _Troodon_'s type
fossil in Troodontidae(sp).