Re: [dinosaur] Diplodocus status

[Jaime Headden <jaimeheadden@gmail.com>]

> 1. The Commission changes its mind and admits that CM 84 is the type.

"Admits" is the wrong word here; it implies that the agency that
governs types that everyone agrees to follow is *wrong* on a matter 0f
*fact*, when, in fact, they are not. Just because PEOPLE use CM 84 as
their reference specimen doesn't mean it is now the type specimen. The
appeal to the ICZN to change the type *failed*. It doesn't mean
they're unwilling to admit a point of fact; rather, it's the PEOPLE
who refuse, as this quoted sentence demonstrates.

On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 4:25 AM Mike Taylor <sauropoda@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The bottom line is this:
> * The ICZN says Diplodocus longus is the type species (and so YPM 1920 is the 
> type specimen).
> * Actual sauropod workers use CM 84 as the type specimen for all practical 
> purposes.
>
> That means that reality and the Commission differ. There are only three 
> possible outcomes:
> 1. The Commission changes its mind and admits that CM 84 is the type.
> 2. Sauropod workers stop referring to CM 84 and start comparing putative 
> Diplodocus material to YPM 1920.
> 3. We continue as we are today.
>
> We know from the rejection of the petition that #1 is not going to happen. I 
> can tell you for myself, and for the sauropod workers that I have 
> collaborated with, that #2 is not going to happen. That leaves #3: the issue 
> will continue to sit there â either ignored (which I think is just fine) or 
> occasionally bubbling up to no effect (as in the present thread).
>
> I have made my peace with the fact that all the extant malacologists on the 
> Commission want to think YPM 1920 defines what the name Diplodocus means. I 
> no longer feel the need to persuade them they're wrong. But they most 
> certainly have not persuaded me that they are right, and I am just going to 
> go on my merry way.
>
> -- Mike.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 at 04:46, Tim Williams <tijawi@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Mickey Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>> > But that's just saying things should be how you feel they should be, 
>> > without appealing to any specific consequence.  You and Tschopp need to be 
>> > able to say that "If we allow a type species to be
>> > indeterminate within its genus, then if we have problem X it would be more 
>> > difficult to solve."  I've yet to hear a valid problem X for the ICZN, 
>> > Phylocode or any other logical construct.  Just vague
>> > "insecurities and confusion" or in your case it being "bad."
>>
>>
>> I don't see a species as simply a construct that is invented to
>> satisfy ICZN rules.  I see a species as a real biological entity.  The
>> ICZN may govern the rules of nomenclature, but it doesn't decide
>> biology.
>>
>> Allowing a type species to be indeterminate within its genus is just
>> jiggery-pokery to keep the genus going.  The indeterminate species
>> conforms to the ICZN Code, but it doesn't actually denote a real
>> species in the biological sense. Taxonomically, retaining a nomen
>> dubium as a type species gives the misleading impression that it's a
>> separate species in its own right.  In reality, it's just a
>> bureaucratic placeholder.  Scientific nomenclature should be about
>> naming real species - not exploiting the arcane rules of the Code to
>> prop up indeterminate species.



-- 
Jaime A. Headden
The Bite Stuff: 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://qilong.wordpress.com/__;!!LIr3w8kk_Xxm!87bGs9n4XVHw1gjVg3HGYcoIp9NJiQHmBB3QcymzPVs2eNl0-HMLhYBrvCzpJ2ye$
 


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