[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Dinosauria: Original Definition VS Clade Conversion (WAS: Re: tiny-armed theropods)
Though using vicious reverse-thinking of article 11.7 of the Phylocode,
the dinocephalian *Dinosaurus* Fischer, 1847 (= *Brithopus*) and the
sauropodomorph *Dinosaurus* Rütimeyer, 1856 (= *Gresslyosaurus* =
*Plateosaurus*) could be interesting specifiers. And by interesting, I
mean funny. :-)
Joke apart, Owen having used *Megalosaurus*, *Iguanodon*, and
*Hylaeosaurus* to define his Dinosauria, it would have been interesting
to preserve the use of the original specifiers - the underlying issue
being the validity of these taxa. *Megalosaurus* was indeed considered
by some (Molnar et al., 1990; Allain & Chure, 2002) as a dubious taxon
until its recent resurrection by Benson et al. (2008) - though I know
that some paleontologists were not pleased with it. And, of course,
*Iguanodon* was assigned a new type species (*I. bernissartensis*) to
stabilize ornithopod taxonomy.
Though these three genera cannot be considered as "types", they were
specifically included in this group by Owen. Types are a special kind of
specifiers of which the use is strictly regulated by the ICZN. Other
specifiers are used according to the recommendations of the Phylocode.
This might lead to some looseness in phylogenetic taxonomy - but this
was precisely the intention of the redactors of this code (if I am not
mistaken) as it gives also a greater flexibility to this taxonomy,
limiting therefore stability threats.
I read numerous papers dealing with the phylogenetic taxonomy of
dinosaurs. As far as I know, no one has ever proposed to use Owen's
specifiers... Did you ever hear of a such attempt ?
'As a Professor of Science, I assure you we did in fact evolve from
filthy monkey men.'
Le 22/10/2011 06:08, David Marjanovic a écrit :
Being above the family group of ranks, Dinosauria does not have a type
specimen, not even indirectly.
(In animal nomenclature, species have type specimens, genera have type
species, and so on; superfamilies have type families; taxa at higher
ranks lack types, which is often a distinct disadvantage.)
Oct. 17th 02:21, Anthony Docimo wrote:
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).