[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Proceedings of the "Quatrième sympos
There's also no real need to suppress nomina dubia in most cases. Just don't
use them. Explicit suppression is only necessary to make a junior synonym the
valid name (by suppressing the senior synonym).
Indeed, simply suppressing a nomen dubium may be counter-productive, because
that will leave all unidentifiable material assigned to it nameless and
taxonomically unassigned. It may be advisable in the case of especially
pernicious or confusing nomina dubia*, but usually (since a nomen dubium is for
practical purposes just another term for "[higher-level taxon] incertae
sedis")**, simple reassignment to a higher-level taxon is enough. Essentially,
most nomina dubia are leftovers of the original Linnean system (as opposed to
the Linnean-Stricklandian one which was formalized into the ICZN Code).
* When a nomen dubium's type material is belatedly identified as belonging to a
named taxon that would be a junior synonym, suppression would seem to be
mandatory to continue use of that junior name by turning it into a nomen
** Technically it rather means "taxon with crappy/ambiguous
description/diagnosis or type material" (without either, it would be a nomen
Jaime Headden <email@example.com> schrieb am Do, 27.3.2014:
Betreff: Re: Proceedings of the "Quatrième sympos
CC: "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>
Datum: Donnerstag, 27. März, 2014 13:02 Uhr
Here comes Jaime and the
nomen dubium is a taxon that cannot be be diagnosed nor
to a diagnosable taxon. If
it's a junior synonym, that's assigned to
a diagnosable taxon. It's not just a word
for 'name I don't think is
valid'. Get it right, people.>>
This definition does not occur
under any published code of
which the taxa listed can be covered. The ICZN does
have a definition for "nomen dubium,"
but it is a lot shorter:
"nomen dubium (pl. nomina dubia),
n.A Latin term meaning "a name of unknown
or doubtful application"."
I understand the need to have the term mean
something grand and
useful; as it is, the
ICZN's definition isn't. This is largely due to
practice: the term was often irregularly used,
and how a person would
call a taxon by it,
and what they would do with the taxon
subsequently, had much variation.
Mickey does have a point:
Norman's usage of terms is inappropriate. He
is certainly using "nomen dubium" as
a formal suppression tactic, but
is itself an act the ICZN holds as a plenary power, not
one it shares with anyone who can use the term
"nomen dubium" for
can understand that the author feels that other
taxa are "not useful"
and maybe based on a little too much crap, or
only have one autapomorphy, or are defined on
an suite of characters
which are unique to
the taxon but lack a single, special autapomorphy.
But he cites no work that demonstrates this.
Norman is a classic
taxonomist in this case,
but shows little effort to validate this
opinion with more rigorous, perhaps mathematic,
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at
4:46 AM, Mickey Mortimer
>> NORMAN, D.B. - On the taxonomy and
diversity of Wealden iguanodontian dinosaurs (Ornithischia:
Norman seems not to know what 'nomen dubium'
"Sellacoxa pauli is considered to be a nomen dubium.
The latter name should be suppressed. The partial skeleton
NHMUK R3788 may be referred to the hypodigm of Barilium
Then Sellacoxa is a junior synonym, not a nomen dubium.
hollingtoniensis is therefore a nomen dubium and its name
can safely be suppressed. NHMUK R1148 (and a series of
additional specimens that were given different numbers, but
together form an associated set of skeletal remains
collected at the same time from the same quarry - Norman, in
press b) has been referred to the hypodigm of Hypselospinus
Then Huxleysaurus is not a nomen dubium, it's a junior
synonym of Hypselospinus.
> "Darwinsaurus evolutionis is a nomen
dubium and this name can safely be suppressed. The alleged
holotype material can be referred Hypselospinus fittoni
and Mantellisaurus atherfieldensis."
> Again, by definition,
that's not a nomen dubium.
> "Dollodon seelyi is therefore a nomen
dubium and the name can safely be suppressed. The material,
which was regarded as the holotype of I. seelyi is
considered to be referable to the taxon Iguanodon
> And again. And it continues, for
Dollodon bampingi and Mantellodon.
> A nomen dubium is a taxon that cannot be
be diagnosed nor assigned to a diagnosable taxon. If
it's a junior synonym, that's assigned to a
diagnosable taxon. It's not just a word for 'name
I don't think is valid'. Get it right, people.
The Bite Stuff: http://qilong.wordpress.com/
"Innocent, unbiased observation is a
myth" - P. B. Medawar (1969)