Re: New papers in Geobios (and nomenclatoral gripe)

[gerarus@westnet.com.au]

>61.1.1. No matter how the boundaries of a taxonomic taxon may vary in
>the 
>opinion of zoologists the valid name of such a taxon is determined
>[Art. 
>23.3] from the name-bearing type(s) considered to belong within those
>boundaries.

    And that's my argument, really - Sachs and Hornung have
recognised a genus that includes the type specimens of _Mochlodon_
and _Zalmoxes_, and as the former is the older name, priority
requires that it be the name of the genus.

>
>61.1.2. Objectivity provided by typification is continuous through
>the 
>hierarchy of names. It extends in ascending order from the species
>group to 
>the family group. Thus the name-bearing type of a nominal
>species-group 
>taxon is a specimen or a set of specimens (a holotype, lectotype,
>neotype or 
>syntypes [Art. 72.1.2]), that of a nominal genus-group taxon is a
>nominal 
>species defined objectively by its type; that of a nominal
>family-group 
>taxon is the nominal genus on which its name is based.

<snip>

>But in 
>the eyes of the ICZN, this doesn't matter.  The ICZN says that, as
>the type 
>species, _I. anglicus_ MUST be in _Iguanodon_, and the validity of 
>_Iguanodon_ is determined by the validity of _I. anglicus_
>("objective 
>standard of reference"; 61.1.).
>
    I think I get what you're arguing, Tim (emphasis on _think_ - my
sincere apologies if I've misunderstood you). However, I don't think
I'd agree with you. I've always understood this to mean that 'genus A
is the genus that it's type species belongs to', etc. Every specimen
must have fallen into one species or another, even if we can't
identify which species it was for the material we have available.
Therefore, the fact that we can't identify the species
characteristics of _Mochlodon suessi_ is irrelevant to the question
of what genus it belongs to - _if_ we can demonstrate that 'whatever
species this was, it fell within this genus'. By placing the type
material of _Mochlodon_ within _Zalmoxes_, Sachs and Hornung
effectively did just this.

>In a phylogenetic universe, this makes perfect sense.  But the ICZN
>has a 
>narrower view of the world, and puts a lot of stock in the quality of
>the 
>type.

    Again, I wouldn't have such a narrow view of the ICZN as you. The
type specimen must by definition belong to the species it typifies,
and every specimen must have belonged to one species or another.
While the current specimen of _Antrodemus valens_ does not possess
the characters necessary to reliably identify it, the individual it
came from would have probably done so while alive. And yes,
_Antrodemus_ would take priority over _Allosaurus_ - _if_ we could
demonstrate the two to be congeneric.

    Cheers,

        Christopher Taylor