[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

RE: [dinosaur] New Konzhukovia species (temnospondyl) from Permian of South America + Early Triassic polar coprolites + more papers




 
> Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 12:12:41 +1000
> From: tijawi@gmail.com
> To: dinosaur-l@usc.edu
> Subject: Re: [dinosaur] New Konzhukovia species (temnospondyl) from Permian of South America + Early Triassic polar coprolites + more papers
>
> Mickey Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com> wrote:

> > It doesn't mean we have to include Deinodon in an analysis, only that we have to use evidence to place it somewhere in a phylogeny. Maybe that would be morphometric evidence, as that's commonly used based on expansions of Smith's tooth
> > measurement sample. Of course adding Deinodon to a phylogenetic analysis is itself scientifically interesting- to tell us something quantitative about where it belongs in the tree of life.
>
> As we all know, _Deinodon_ is known from a handful of teeth that Leidy
> decided to dignify with a name. The fact that _Deinodon_ has a name
> is the only reason it gets any attention at all. I'm not certain how
> "scientifically" interesting plugging it into an analysis would be. I
> suspect it might be a grand waste of time.
 
 Wait...are teeth no longer considered adequate to distinguish one species or genus from another?
 
 
> > I don't think phylogenetic nomenclature has anything to do with this. If we didn't have a phylogenetic definition for Tyrannosauroidea or Tyrannosauridae, you'd no doubt still think using Deinodontidae and Coeluroidea is silly. Right?
>
> Right. Let's pick a name, and stick with it. Tyrannosauroidea is a
> great name, and it's widely used.
 
*_Tyrannosaurus rex_* is widely used.  I imagine far fewer people use _Tyrannosauridea_.
:)
 
>  More importantly, it's also been
> explicitly defined as a clade. Why ditch it in favor of
> Deinodontoidea or Coeluroidea?
>
>
> Jocelyn Falconnet <j.falconnet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If we have to forget names based on nomina dubia... what about
> > ceratopsians and other Ceratops-derived names ?
>
> We're only talking about coordinated family-level names
> (superfamily/-oidea, family/-idae, subfamily/-inae, tribe/-ini).
 
that seems rather arbitrary...why stop there?  if we're supposed to give that up on Family-level, why not on the other levels too?