[Previous by date - Viruses?]
[Next by date - Re: GALTONIA (a test case?)]
[Previous by subject - Re: GALTONIA (a test case?)]
[Next by subject - Re: GALTONIA (a test case?)]
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 15:31:05 -0600 (CST)
From: "Jonathan R. Wagner" <znc14@TTACS.TTU.EDU>
To: "T. Mike Keesey" <tmk@dinosauricon.com>
Cc: PhyloCode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: GALTONIA (a test case?)
At 03:44 PM 3/10/01 -0500, you wrote:
>> But if there is not some agreement on such cases beforehand, I can
>> envision a zoologist jumping the gun and trying to cladistically define
>> something like the dinosaur Galtonia to get it priority under PhyloCode
Since Galtonia gibbidens is a tooth-taxon, I feel there is no need
(nor really any justification) to convert the species at all. If someone
made a VERY GOOD CASE that substantive material could be associated with the
name, and that more than one species could be recognized, it *might* be
appropriate to convert the name. I don't think we need to expend a great
deal of time worrying about the conversion of monotypic genera and dubious
species. Of course, the PhyloCode does open the door for those who like to
see their name in print to persue "wholesale conversion" (even though this
is verbally discouraged in the Code), and such instances provide numerous
opportunities for nomenclatural proliferation. Of course, on the other hand,
just because a name is converted doesn't mean it HAS to be used (you just
can't use it for something else, nor recognize the same definition with a
different name).
Wagner
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan R. Wagner, Dept. of Geosciences, TTU, Lubbock, TX 79409-1053
"Why do I sense we've picked up another pathetic lifeform?" - Obi-Wan Kenobi