[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 14:23:39 -0700
> From: keesey@gmail.com
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: Re: Sauropodz r kewl WAS silly ramble
>
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Anthony Docimo <keenir@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> Did you know the hoatzin was originally described as a species of the
> pheasant genus?

 

 Yes.

 

> That's right, the original name of the species was
> "Phasianus hoazin". Once it was recognized as being something else, it
> was given its own genus and therefore had to be renamed "Opisthocomus
> hoazin".
>
> And that's the point -- why should the name have to change if the
> contents and definition haven't?

 

The name shouldn't have to change, even if its later moved to another group.  
(for example, Megalonyx didn't get renamed when we discovered it was a sloth 
and not a lion)

 

if, by some hypothetical, the original specimen of Mei long gets reanalyzed as 
a member of genus Troodon, currently it would become Troodon long...but if we 
get rid of species, its just Troodon?

 

(I just had that link David shared, and now its lost; gah)

 

but that first example gets into this aspect:

 

> > Heck, Therizinosaurs used to be considered *turtles* -- isn't that a bigger 
> > taxonomic concern* than wether weiskopfae are Cedarosauruses or 
> > Brachiosauruses?
>
> Therizinosauria isn't a species and Testudines isn't a genus, so the
> issue with binomial nomenclature doesn't apply here.

 

Apologies then; I had thought the discussion had shifted to include branches 
above the Genus level as well as the binomials.