[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Sauropodz r kewl WAS silly ramble
> Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 08:15:15 +0100
> From: email@example.com
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> CC: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: Sauropodz r kewl WAS silly ramble
> >> > (Well, that or dinosaur paleontologists could stop putting every new
> >> > species in its own genus, already!)
> >> I think they should (at least for the most part) stop pretending to
> >> recognize species at all.
> > but then wouldn't the Genus be the new LITUs?
> Yes. But with the crucial advantage that the name itself no longer
> depends on a phylogenetic hypothesis. When I name a new dinosaur as
> (say)_a species of Brachiosaurus, if it then turns out that
> Cedarosaurus weiskopfae clades closer to Brachiosaurus altithorax
> proper than to my new animal, then either I have to move mine to a new
> genus, or move the species weiskopfae into Brachiosaurus.
Ah, okay; see, here is where my confusion may have arisen in this case: when I
hear "let's get rid of the 'Species' rank"...what my mind interprets that as is
"let there be nothing below Genus".
...which leads to, in your example, the question of "how do you move weiskopfae
into Brachiosaurus, when there is nothing below Brachiosaurus?"
> Either way,
> an actual NAME changes, which is never good for any meaningful
> stability. Much better just to give each species its own genus name
> and let them shuffle around the tree as they will.
Sounds like a paradise for splitters. (or a paradise of what lumpers fear from
Though, if there are no species ranks, wouldn't that create even more arguments
about if the new find is a Brachiosaurus? (before the elimination of Species,
we might have said "the new find is a variant of Brachiosaurus
altithorax")...I'm particularly fearing what the ceratopsian debates will
become with no subdivisions below Torosaurus, Triceratops, etc.
> -- Mike.