> 1. The Commission changes its mind and admits that CM 84 is the type.
"Admits" is the wrong word here; it implies that the agency that
governs types that everyone agrees to follow is *wrong* on a matter 0f
*fact*, when, in fact, they are not. Just because PEOPLE use CM 84 as
their reference specimen doesn't mean it is now the type specimen. The
appeal to the ICZN to change the type *failed*. It doesn't mean
they're unwilling to admit a point of fact; rather, it's the PEOPLE
who refuse, as this quoted sentence demonstrates.
On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 4:25 AM Mike Taylor <sauropoda@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The bottom line is this:
> * The ICZN says Diplodocus longus is the type species (and so YPM 1920 is the type specimen).
> * Actual sauropod workers use CM 84 as the type specimen for all practical purposes.
>
> That means that reality and the Commission differ. There are only three possible outcomes:
> 1. The Commission changes its mind and admits that CM 84 is the type.
> 2. Sauropod workers stop referring to CM 84 and start comparing putative Diplodocus material to YPM 1920.
> 3. We continue as we are today.
>
> We know from the rejection of the petition that #1 is not going to happen. I can tell you for myself, and for the sauropod workers that I have collaborated with, that #2 is not going to happen. That leaves #3: the issue will continue to sit there â either ignored (which I think is just fine) or occasionally bubbling up to no effect (as in the present thread).
>
> I have made my peace with the fact that all the extant malacologists on the Commission want to think YPM 1920 defines what the name Diplodocus means. I no longer feel the need to persuade them they're wrong. But they most certainly have not persuaded me that they are right, and I am just going to go on my merry way.
>
> -- Mike.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 at 04:46, Tim Williams <tijawi@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
--
Jaime A. Headden
The Bite Stuff: http://qilong.wordpress.com/
"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth" - P. B. Medawar (1969)