[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Magnapaulia, "new" lambeosaurine from Baja California, Mexico
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 4:18 PM, <email@example.com> wrote:
> Tsk, tsk-too much splitting. This material does not represent a new genus, at
> least from my point of view.
Unfortunately, personal points of view are usually the only criteria
we have for delimiting genera.*
> I wish that more existing genera should be bolstered by adding species,
I sort of agree. This could easily have been Velafrons laticaudus. But
it's not a huge issue. Or at least, it's not a scientific issue.
> rather than over-exaggerating dinosaur diversity by creating excess genera.
The key there is to remember that genera are a terrible unit of
diversity. Nobody should use them as such, ever.
* Except for those which have been phylogenetically defined, but
that's not the case for the vast majority of dinosaur genera. In fact,
I can only think of one example off the top of my head -- Sereno's
(1998) definition of Archaeopteryx, which he later used instead for
T. Michael Keesey