[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: firstname.lastname@example.org
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: Sauropodz r kewl WAS silly ramble
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Anthony Docimo <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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?
> 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
> 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.