RE: Hadrosaur nomenclature

["Jaime A. Headden" <qilongia@yahoo.com>]

Randall Irmis (rbi@dana.ucc.nau.edu) wrote:

<If you look at modern taxa, there are some separate species that are 
indistinguishable through
osteology, and others vary widely.  Therefore, how can we even define species 
in fossil taxa?  If
we get rid of genus, why not get rid of species as well?  Heck, we could create 
phylogenies where
each separate specimen is its own OTU; wouldnt that be fun?  To create useful 
phylogenies, at some
point we need to conserve a clade.  Since getting rid of genera would create 
the largest taxonomic
mess in the history of biology, I would advocate conserving the Linnean 
binomial.>

  Ah, you are referring to "described" species, not "actual" or 
"genetically-bound" species, or
morphologically-bound species. There is a barbet species in the Andes described 
in _the Auk_ last
year that is defined based only on biogeography and color patterning. Huh? 
Where is the logic
here. Very loose bounds as to what a species really is. There are also quite a 
few specialists
working on sinking or re-establishing species or even genera, based solely on 
genetics, that do
not make it into the mainstream. It might be wise to look into the specialist 
literature for these
papers.


=====
Jaime A. Headden

  Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhr-gen-ti-na
  Where the Wind Comes Sweeping Down the Pampas!!!!

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com