RE: Sereno's (2005) new definitions

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

Mickey Mortimer (mickey_mortimer111@msn.com) wrote:

<But a nomen dubium is just a specimen, an organism.  So if we can run more
diagnosable specimens through phylogenetic analyses, why not less diagnosable
specimens?  AMNH 460 has no taxonomic standing, yet Upchurch et al. (2004) ran
it as an OTU.>

  As Tim said, a specimen can be run as a operational "phylogenetic" unit, but
its use in taxonomy is very questionable. Thus a taxon based on one such
specimen as a specifier is also questionable. It would be better, perhaps, to
run specimen-based matrices, as I have been doing for oviraptorosaurs, in order
to test consistency of variation in skeletons. We can adopt, for example, T.
Michael Keesey's suggestion that specimens that constitute types can be used as
internal specifiers for nomenclature, and that while one can use a specimen to
support a further taxonomic division, we mwill create OTU's out of these
stem-based complexes of specimen-based operating units. This was, in fact, the
basis of his proposal for a definition of a species.

<Why view -idae and -ia clades differently if we're ignoring the ICZN?>

  Who says we should ignore the ICZN? I'd rather just ignore the rank-based
provisions. Names ending in -ia, contra above, are not mandated by any
taxonomic system, and can be used for a variety of different taxa, including
the palynomorph "genus" *Wodehouseia*, the "subfamily" Microraptoria, and names
like Ceratopsia and Theria. This use of -ia is based more on Latin endings
forming nouns, and is not a suffix as is -idae.

  Cheers,

Jaime A. Headden

"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)


        
                
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year. 
http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/