[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
If we have to forget names based on nomina dubia... what about
ceratopsians and other Ceratops-derived names ?
(I don't even want to elaborate on this case, in fact, knowing I will
surely be executed on the public square in the few minutes following
this mail...)
Jocelyn
2016-04-12 9:44 GMT+02:00 Mickey Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com>:
> ----------------------------------------
>> Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 16:27:33 +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:
>>
>>> Apparently the misunderstanding where authors think family-level groups
>>> can't be based on nomina dubia extends to non-dinosaurian taxa as well.
>>
>> Yes, family-level groups *can* be based on nomina dubia - this is
>> allowed by the ICZN. But the question is: *should* family-level
>> groups be based on nomina dubia? I don't think they should be. Do we
>> have to replace Tyrannosauridae with Deinodontidae, simply because
>> Deinodontidae was named first? This seems like the nomenclatural
>> equivalent of political correctness gone mad.
>
> There should be a petition to the ICZN in that case, and also a detailed
> redescription of Deinodon's syntypes that compared them in depth to other
> taxa. Currently, everyone's operating under the untested assumption that
> Russell's 46 year old statement they can't be distinguished from
> albertosaurines or Daspletosaurus is true. If the new study found they
> couldn't be distinguished from e.g. Bistahieversor or Appalachiosaurus, which
> are outside Tyrannosauridae, then that would be a great case for suppressing
> Deinodontidae.
>
>> A family-level group is a clade, and the clade needs to be defined
>> using the nominal taxon. So if we use the family Deinodontidae in
>> preference to Tyrannosauridae, then we have to use _Deinodon_ as a
>> specifier. That means we have to include _Deinodon_ in a phylogenetic
>> analysis. But if _Deinodon_ is crap, then there's no point including
>> it in a phylogenetic analysis. It would be done simply for
>> bookkeeping reasons - there is no valid scientific reason.
>
> 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.
>
>> This issue of priority may come up again, from another direction.
>> Some phylogenetic analyses find _Coelurus_ to belong to the
>> Tyrannosauroidea. In this case, ICZN 'rules' would require that the
>> Tyrannosauroidea be renamed Coeluroidea (because Coeluridae was named
>> before Tyrannosauridae). This is silly.
>
> Here's the thing (and we've probably been over this before, but I forget your
> answer...)- Yeah, renaming Tyrannosauroidea Coeluroidea is silly. But why
> are you against petitioning the ICZN to prevent this, instead of just
> ignoring the rules whenever you think they don't function well? That is the
> reason petitioning exists, after all.
>
>> I know this is a well-worn argument; but once family-level taxa were
>> converted into clades, I see no reason why ICZN 'rules' are necessary
>> when it comes to priority.
>
> 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?
>
> Mickey Mortimer
> <div id="DDB4FAA8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br />
> <table style="border-top: 1px solid #aaabb6;">
> <tr>
> <td style="width: 55px; padding-top: 13px;"><a
> href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_sig-2Demail-3Futm-5Fmedium-3Demail-26utm-5Fsource-3Dlink-26utm-5Fcampaign-3Dsig-2Demail-26utm-5Fcontent-3Dwebmail-26utm-5Fterm-3Doa-2D2200-2Db&d=CwIFAw&c=clK7kQUTWtAVEOVIgvi0NU5BOUHhpN0H8p7CSfnc_gI&r=Ry_mO4IFaUmGof_Yl9MyZgecRCKHn5g4z1CYJgFW9SI&m=cq15JpflVh2s8NqKs_BuQNfxhjDEIi1Y7yniNkQly0s&s=S_F7UMO-57yO8ml04yGY4hX0XJLa5VeEM1EOOov8klg&e=
> " target="_blank"><img
> src="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ipmcdn.avast.com_images_2016_icons_icon-2Denvelope-2Dtick-2Dround-2Dorange-2Dv1.png&d=CwIFAw&c=clK7kQUTWtAVEOVIgvi0NU5BOUHhpN0H8p7CSfnc_gI&r=Ry_mO4IFaUmGof_Yl9MyZgecRCKHn5g4z1CYJgFW9SI&m=cq15JpflVh2s8NqKs_BuQNfxhjDEIi1Y7yniNkQly0s&s=2_xdcggtgeWNsdaWxagT7y8RqOFQJUEg01uyQQgzPqU&e=
> " /></a></td>
> <td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 15px; color: #41424e;
> font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height:
> 18px;">Virus-free. <a
> href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_sig-2Demail-3Futm-5Fmedium-3Demail-26utm-5Fsource-3Dlink-26utm-5Fcampaign-3Dsig-2Demail-26utm-5Fcontent-3Dwebmail-26utm-5Fterm-3Doa-2D2200-2Db&d=CwIFAw&c=clK7kQUTWtAVEOVIgvi0NU5BOUHhpN0H8p7CSfnc_gI&r=Ry_mO4IFaUmGof_Yl9MyZgecRCKHn5g4z1CYJgFW9SI&m=cq15JpflVh2s8NqKs_BuQNfxhjDEIi1Y7yniNkQly0s&s=S_F7UMO-57yO8ml04yGY4hX0XJLa5VeEM1EOOov8klg&e=
> " target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;">www.avast.com</a>
> </td>
> </tr>
> </table><a href="#DDB4FAA8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1"
> height="1"></a></div>
--
Jocelyn Falconnet