[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: [dinosaur] Diplodocus status
Mickey Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com> wrote:
> But that's just saying things should be how you feel they should be, without
> appealing to any specific consequence. You and Tschopp need to be able to
> say that "If we allow a type species to be
> indeterminate within its genus, then if we have problem X it would be more
> difficult to solve." I've yet to hear a valid problem X for the ICZN,
> Phylocode or any other logical construct. Just vague
> "insecurities and confusion" or in your case it being "bad."
I don't see a species as simply a construct that is invented to
satisfy ICZN rules. I see a species as a real biological entity. The
ICZN may govern the rules of nomenclature, but it doesn't decide
biology.
Allowing a type species to be indeterminate within its genus is just
jiggery-pokery to keep the genus going. The indeterminate species
conforms to the ICZN Code, but it doesn't actually denote a real
species in the biological sense. Taxonomically, retaining a nomen
dubium as a type species gives the misleading impression that it's a
separate species in its own right. In reality, it's just a
bureaucratic placeholder. Scientific nomenclature should be about
naming real species - not exploiting the arcane rules of the Code to
prop up indeterminate species.