[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Sauropodz r kewl WAS: silly conversation on 2012 US presidential race
I disagree with that. For one thing, many hadrosaurs and ceratopids are easily
considered different species of one genus. Look at any other fossil vertebrate
group, and you will see UNQUESTIONED MEGA-GENERA like *Hyaenadon*,
*Dimetrodon*, etc. As you can tell, I am proud to be a lumper. I think many
ornithischian genera can be sunk into wider, easier groupings. But it's a
case-by-case situation. More time needed for this one.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Taylor" <email@example.com>
Cc: "Dinosaur Mailing List" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 5:13:08 PM
Subject: Re: Sauropodz r kewl WAS: silly conversation on 2012 US presidential
On 16 April 2012 22:10, Mike Keesey <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 1:09 PM, David Marjanovic
> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> I think they should (at least for the most part) stop pretending to
>> recognize species at all. To most of the fossil record, only the most boring
>> morphological species concepts can be applied; you might as well call them
>> LITUs* instead of species. The only problem is that the ICZN forces everyone
>> to pretend to recognize species, because an organism can't bear a name at
>> all if it's not referred to a species.
> Yes, even better!
That's why, in dinosaur taxonomy, the unofficial definition of genus
is: "a two-word name for a distinctive specimen".