Ethan Schoales <ethan.schoales@gmail.com> wrote:
> Do names have to change when they're redefined or their content changes?
Short answer: No.
As examples, the names Osteichthyes ('bony fish') and Sarcopterygii
('lobe-finned fish') were both kept after tetrapods (amphibians,
reptiles, birds, mammals) were included as subgroups of both these
traditional 'fish' groups. These clades recognize the importance of
establishing affinities based on shared descent rather than typology.
The name Dinosauria did not change when birds (Aves) were included.
This reflects the phylogenetic reality that birds are a lineage of
dinosaurs, just as bats are a lineage of mammals.
Nonetheless, some names have changed when their content has been
changed (either expanded or reduced) - but these name changes are not
necessary. One example is Cetartiodactyla: the original name
(Artiodactyla) was changed to Cetartiodactyla when the content of
Artiodactyla was expanded to include whales (Cetacea). But I'd say
this was entirely a matter of taste; there was no objective reason to
change Artiodactyla to Cetartiodactyla.
Similarly, another mammalian group Archonta was renamed Euarchonta
when its traditional content was reduced (by the removal of
Chiroptera). I'd say this name change was also unnecessary.
> Linnaeus put arachnids and crustaceans in Insecta, but when they were removed, the name stayed. (For example.)
More recently, molecular-based phylogenies have put Hexapoda
(including Insecta) inside Crustacea. However, because this makes
traditional Crustacea paraphyletic, there is a tendency to avoid
calling this combined clade Crustacea, and instead refer to it as
Pancrustacea or (preferably) Tetraconata.
> Raise your hand if you wish the ICZN allowed misleading names (like Basilosaurus, Arrhinoceratops, etc.) to be changed.
Actually, I don't find misleading names to be all that bad (although
they can sometimes be embarrassing to the namer!). Such names can
reflect how ideas about certain taxa have changed, or represent honest
mistakes on the part of workers, particularly in the pioneering days
of paleontology (_Basilosaurus_ is a good example).
However, I do object to names that are disrespectful or unethical.
Thankfully, these cases are rare; but when they arise there should be
scope to revise the name. I thought Mike Raath should have been
granted the right to re-name the preoccupied _Syntarsus_; instead
we're stuck with _Megapnosaurus_.
My other gripe is regarding names that are incorrectly/improperly
formed (like _Notatesseraeraptor _ or _Aberratiodontus_).
Unfortunately, these are quite common, and usually the result of
inattention to detail. Again, there should be recourse to rectify
these names.
Stephen Dedman <dedmans@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>'Basilosaurus' has always bugged me, but at least we weren't stuck with calling Megalosaurus 'Scrotum humanum'.
Thankfully, we don't need to worry too much about 'Scrotum humanum' -
it was never intended as a binomial, so can never threaten the
priority of _Megalosaurus_.
Linnaeus put arachnids and crustaceans in Insecta, but when they were
removed, the name stayed. (For example.)
>
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 7:54 PM Ethan Schoales <ethan.schoales@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>> From: Ethan Schoales <ethan.schoales@gmail.com>
>> Date: Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 7:48 PM
>> Subject: Fwd: [dinosaur] Party like it's 1758!
>> To: Yazbeck, Thomas <yazbeckt@msu.edu>
>>
>>
>> Raise your hand if you wish the ICZN allowed misleading names (like Basilosaurus, Arrhinoceratops, etc.) to be changed.
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>> From: Ethan Schoales <ethan.schoales@gmail.com>
>> Date: Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 7:46 PM
>> Subject: Re: [dinosaur] Party like it's 1758!
>> To: Yazbeck, Thomas <yazbeckt@msu.edu>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi, Dinosaur Mailing List guys.
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 6:25 PM Yazbeck, Thomas <yazbeckt@msu.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> Is there any incentive to split up the Psittacosaurus species into 'uninomials'? Maybe subgenera are a better option to reduce confusion in special cases...
>>>
>>>
>>> Thomas Yazbeck
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: dinosaur-l-request@mymaillists.usc.edu <dinosaur-l-request@mymaillists.usc.edu> on behalf of Paul P <turtlecroc@yahoo.com>
>>> Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2020 6:08 PM
>>> To: DML <dinosaur-l@usc.edu>
>>> Subject: Re: [dinosaur] Party like it's 1758!
>>>
>>> On Thursday, June 18, 2020, 09:10:21 AM UTC, Mike Taylor <sauropoda@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > > But there is a bias toward publishing manuscripts that name genera and not "just" species.
>>> > Correct, and I am very much in favour of this for dinosaurs.
>>>
>>> Are you suggesting that we can't hope to distinguish between dinosaur species (of a given genus) in the fossil record? That may be true for some groups for the time being, but it's certainly possible to estimate the species groups for a few genera. Triceratops is just one example, although in this case they are non-contemporaneous (possible anagenesis).
>>>
>>>
>>> > then the name of the species will have to change to reflect it
>>>
>>> They might end up being synonymized, but species names don't change. Or are you talking about new combos, e.g. moving a species to a different genus or creating a new genus name for it later..?
>>>
Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Email:Âtholtz@umd.eduÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ Phone: 301-405-4084
Principal Lecturer, Vertebrate Paleontology
Office: Geology 4106, 8000 Regents Dr., College Park MD 20742
Dept. of Geology, University of Maryland
http://www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/
Phone: 301-405-6965
Fax: 301-314-9661ÂÂÂÂÂÂ ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ
Faculty Director, Science & Global Change Program, College Park Scholars
Office: Centreville 1216, 4243 Valley Dr., College Park MD 20742
http://www.geol.umd.edu/sgc
Fax: 301-314-9843
Mailing Address:ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ Department of Geology
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ Building 237, Room 1117
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ 8000 Regents Drive
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ University of Maryland
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ College Park, MD 20742-4211 USA