[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,  <tyazbeck@comcast.net> 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
Archaeopterygidae, anyway:

T. Michael Keesey