[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;
OK; I'm just saying Wikipedia can be taken care of.
> This means that taxonomic listings treat it as "genus" + species, not
> an unranked praenomen in front of a species name.
It's not even that (in the original paper anyway). It's a uninominal for an
unranked taxon that has a space in the middle. Not "new species", just "new
> 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.
Did you explain your changes and the reasons for them on the talk page?
> editors' prerogatives on how they want to allow changes from schmucks
> like myself.
Everyone is an editor. (Not everyone is an administrator, but administrators
seldom meddle in such things.)
> 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'm not quite sure what you mean. I'll attempt a thorough edit myself tomorrow.
> One recent example was the "discovery" of a new family of
Amphisbaenians are squamates. Gymnophionans/caecilians are lissamphibians.
> that has been reported (but is currently unpublished)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).
The genus is easy to justify: in order to lump it with *Herpele*, you'd have to
lump *Boulengerula* in there as well; in order to lump it with *Gegeneophis*
(has that species, previously known from a single, morphologically badly
preserved specimen, ever been referred to *Gegeneophis*?), it and most other
caecilians would have to be sunk (back) into *Caecilia*.
The family is justified in the paper by comparison to other families in terms
of morphological distance and divergence time (the diagnosis of Herpelidae
would have to be changed a lot, and most gymnophionan families are younger than
the divergence between Herpelidae and the new one). That's the Linnaeanist
part, of which I have to say the "why not" is as strong as the "why".
Free supplementary information: