[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Vitakridrinda publication validity
1. Perhaps you misunderstood. The issue [I have] with *Ambondro mahabo* is that
it is referred to as a genus-species couplet in further literature, not just
Wikipedia; for example, various papers by Luo Zhe-xi use "genus" and list
*Ambondro* by itself. Note here that Flynn et al. treat *Ambondro* as the
lesser-valued of the couplet they coined, *mahabo* being the more important
that doesn't get abbreviated. This means that taxonomic listings treat it as
"genus" + species, not an unranked praenomen in front of a species name. This
was not its original purpose.
2.My issue with changing things on wiki is that just as easily someone who
disagrees can change it back. I attempted this on the oviraptorosaur pages, and
the changes I had attempted (years back) were undone. Changes to Wikipedia,
while democratic, are based on broad consensus, and editors' prerogatives on
how they want to allow changes from schmucks like myself.
3. Also misunderstood, I think. I am referring to the primary body of the text.
The designation of *Ambondro mahabo* as it was by Flynn et al. will not not
recognized for what it is when "unranked" is used in the infobox. It should be
in the main text, and compared to other discussions. This was the primary
reason I balked at the editing (plus, I'm also a schmuck).
I would really, really prefer that this discussion happen and be public and
open, and I go to great pains of bringing the ire of various systematists by
arguing against their stated reasons for providing new taxonomy. One recent
example was the "discovery" of a new family of amphisbaenians/gymnophionans
that has been reported (but is currently unpublished) through redesignation of
*Gegeneophis fulleri* (nee *Herpele fulleri*) to a new "genus," and the
designation of a new "family" to contain it, plus apparently a range of
potentially new species within said "genus". The "genus" in question is
considered monospecific, and the authors' reasoning is based on typical
Linnaeist typological thinking ("this object is very distinct" or "more
distinct" -- not actual quotes).
I would much rather that authors predicate their taxonomy on the basis of "I
think this couplet name is a fine name" than to try to offer reasoning that is,
in my opinion, specious: by "validating" their name through typological
Jaime A. Headden
The Bite Stuff (site v2)
"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)
"Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a
different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race
has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or
his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a Billion
> Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 08:53:18 -0500
> Subject: Re: Vitakridrinda publication validity
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> To: email@example.com
> CC: firstname.lastname@example.org; Dinosaur.Mailing.List@listproc.usc.edu
> 1. It's possible to include "unranked" in place of a rank name.
> 2. If something on wiki should be changed but is a bit on the
> technical side (such as infobox formatting) you can always leave a
> message on the Talk page, or on the Talk page of an article's parent
> project, requesting assistance.
> 3. About two minutes. Fixed the infobox and switched it to the newer
> Automatic taxonomy system which allows the use of any and all labels
> you want, including Clade, Branch, Node, etc. If the paper itself
> explicitly notes this is not to be a Genus, then citing the initial
> description should be sufficient.
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Jaime Headden <email@example.com> wrote:
> > 1. How is it "immoral" to complain about the Wikipedia page?
> > 2. How do you think I should enact such a change? Currently, the taxonomy
> > frame to the right of every taxon page prevents one from NOT using the
> > Linnaean System, thereby forcing the System's use. "Changing" that would
> > require I change wikipedia itself. As there is currently no consensus on
> > the use or problems of the Linnaean System (as it currently is still being
> > used by MOST taxonomists out there), this would be pretty ballsy of me to
> > try to force _my_ argument down _their_ throat.
> > 3. I am not sure how long it would take to "fix" my changes, since I do not
> > actually offer a "controversy," as no author has yet to really raise the
> > issue of *Ambondro mahabo* being a non-genus-species couplet in print for
> > me to cite. This is something I am trying to change and bring awareness to
> > in general (despite which, people who agree with me in general will still
> > want to name "genera" and in some cases higher "ranked" taxa through the
> > Linnaean System).
> > Cheers,
> > Jaime A. Headden
> > The Bite Stuff (site v2)
> > http://qilong.wordpress.com/
> > "Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)
> > "Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a
> > different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race
> > has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or
> > his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a Billion
> > Backs)
> > ----------------------------------------
> >> Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 14:10:48 +0100
> >> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> >> To: email@example.com
> >> Subject: RE: Vitakridrinda publication validity
> >> > and this is true also of the Wikipedia
> >> > page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambondro_mahabo . The context of this
> >> > nomenclature isn't even mentioned in the page itself, which is -- I
> >> > feel -- idiotic, not to mention disingenuous of further revisors of the
> >> > page who HAVE read the paper.
> >> It is immoral to complain about Wikipedia. Go and fix it yourself. Just
> >> click on "Edit". :-)