[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

RE: Sauropodz r kewl WAS silly ramble





I was trying to figure out why this bugged me; i think I know now:

 

 

> >> > (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. Either way,
> an actual NAME changes, which is never good for any meaningful
> stability.

 

 How many times has the Hoatzin been moved from one group within Aves to 
another group?  Yet the hoatzin (and other cases) haven't destroyed the 
taxonomic system.

 

Heck, Therizinosaurs used to be considered *turtles*  --  isn't that a bigger 
taxonomic concern* than wether weiskopfae are Cedarosauruses or Brachiosauruses?

 

* = in terms of shuffling and reorganization.

 

> Much better just to give each species its own genus name
> and let them shuffle around the tree as they will.

 

 Yes, because shuffling is a perfect way to ensure stability.  (kidding)


> 
> -- Mike.