Re: On naming taxa

[Dinogeorge@aol.com]

In a message dated 5/23/01 2:19:40 PM EST, z_heraklides@hotmail.com writes:

<< I would rather a reviewer "weed out" crappy new species before they see 
the 
 light of day. >>

What criteria would you apply to designate taxa as "crappy" as opposed to 
taxa that are "not crappy"? The only test I know of for taxonomic 
"crappiness" is that of time.

With regard to diagnosing, as for, e.g., Tyrannosaurus: This can be redone 
anytime we learn something more about the taxon. The diagnosis "big 
tyrannosaurid from the Maastrichtian of North America" is a de facto 
diagnosis, not from Osborn's 1905 paper. The fact that Tyrannosaurus was 
described in the taxonomic dark age of 1905 is not particularly relevant to 
having a good diagnosis for the genus.