|
Then we go back to my first post, and ask do people use the type specimens of Tyrannosaurus, Struthiomimus, Deinonychus, Confuciusornis, Gobipteryx, Baptornis, etc. to judge whether other specimens to belong to the genus? Nope. So I'd say the fantasy is that
the type specimen actually has this function, whereas the reality is that workers use whatever combination of most complete, best described and/or most easily accessable specimen for comparison. I'd prefer if type specimens were redescribed, but as long as
they are similar enough to the 'good' specimens, there aren't bad consequences.
For a sauropod example of when this doesn't end up working, look at Brachiosaurus altithorax versus Giraffatitan brancai. From the 1950s to early 2000s, brancai was the de facto Brachiosaurus, just like carnegii for Diplodocus. You could imagine if late
twentieth century workers had the mentality of so many current dinosaur workers, they might petition the ICZN to make B. brancai the type species, because it's so much more complete and better described, and when someone says "Brachiosaurus", you think of
the HMN mount. But no, priority was respected and sauropod workers have accepted relegating Brachiosaurus to the American scraps. So when you claim "If it ever turns out the D. carnegii is generically separated from D. longus, you can bet for sure that it
will be carnegii that retains the name Diplodocus, whatever the ICZN may say", I don't see why it wouldn't work out the Giraffatitan way.
Mickey Mortimer
From: Mike Taylor <sauropoda@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2020 1:09 AM To: Mickey Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com> Cc: dinosaur-l@usc.edu <dinosaur-l@usc.edu>; Tim Williams <tijawi@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [dinosaur] Diplodocus status
To me, this is not so much about consequences as it is about having what's written conform to reality, rather than perpetuating the fantasy that YPM 1920 is the type specimen by which we judge other specimens to belong, or not belong, to Diplodocus. The reality
is that CM 84 *is* functioning as the type specimen and has done for well over 100 years. I would _like_ to fix the unsightly wart that the ICZN thinks it ain't so; but in the end, it doesn't bother me too much, because people who are actually working on diplodocids
are not significantly slowed down in their work by the mismatch between legalism and reality.
-- Mike.
On Fri, 16 Oct 2020 at 09:04, Mickey Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com> wrote:
|