[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:
> At this point after all these years I think we've worked our way down to the
> basic philosophical dispute between myself on one hand and yourself and Tim
> Williams on the other. Basically, you and
> Tim are nomenclatural anarchists.
Speaking for myself, I'd say I'm a nomenclatural pragmatist. We
should prioritize what works in a practical sense, rather than be
fixated on unrealistic (and often unhelpful) ideals.
Quite often the ICZN gets it right. Designating the London specimen
(rather than an isolated feather) as the type specimen of
_Archaeopteryx_ was certainly the right decision. But for the
_Diplodocus_ type species, I thought they got it wrong.
> Tim said a few days ago that he didn't like indeterminate type species
> because they potentially don't represent a biological reality, not because of
> any nomenclatural difficulty that could occur.
Yes, that's a fair appraisal. I think sometimes people forget that
nomenclature is a branch of biology.