[Previous by date - Re: New Dinosauricon Taxon Pages: _Therizinosauria_]
[Next by date - Re: New Dinosauricon Taxon Pages: _Therizinosauria_]
[Previous by subject - Re: New Dinosauricon Taxon Pages: _Therizinosauria_]
[Next by subject - Re: New Dinosauricon Taxon Pages: _Therizinosauria_]
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 12:33:27 -0800 (PST)
From: "Jaime A. Headden" <qilongia@yahoo.com>
To: dinosaur@usc.edu, PhyloCode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Cc: mike@seatbooker.net
Subject: Re: New Dinosauricon Taxon Pages: _Therizinosauria_
Mike Taylor (mike@seatbooker.net) <Jaime surely did not mean that _Diploducus longus_ and _Diplodocus carnegiei_ would have to have different "first names" (that is, first space-separated component of their single names).> Jaime surely did. In diplodocids, the relative relationships of the species are difficult at best. *D. hayi* may or may not be different from a clade formed by *D. carnegii* and *D. longus,* which may or may not be the same species (if so, *D. longus* as the type species has priority); *Apatosaurus ajax* and *A. excelsus* have been at one time or another considered the same species, or very, very close species; *A. louisae* has been ill-treated in systematic works by virtual is not complete neglect, and diplodocid relationships are horribly under-represented in dinosaurian systematic circles by comparison to, say, thyreophorans or brachiosaurs, to say nothing of titanosaurs and theropods. *A. excelsus*, of course, if a unique species, would revert to Bakker's favored nomen, *Brontosaurus excelsus;* *A. yahnaphin* or *Eobrontosaurus yahnapin,* I care not, as this form is substantiated on morphocline data and stratigraphic separation only, and has again not received much attention apart from the two referrences in which it was described and *Eobrontosaurus* was coined. Only three new names would be required of these two taxa: For *D. carnegii*, for *D. hayi*, and for *A. louisae* ... for *Barosaurus africanus*, other workers have questioned the referral to *Barosaurus* on the basis soley of elongated cervical series, and the taxon may require another name if the species is valid and distinct from *B. lentus* (*B. gracilis* is probably the same as *B. africanus*, and *D. lacustris* shows little distinction from other *Diplodocus* and is currently, I beleive, *D.* sp.). Problems of who gets what name when referal sets in would matter only when all taxa have equal names. While one suggestion of Cantino et al. was to reduce to a single name, this would require unique taxonomy on an order equivalent to or exceeding what I suggest, and the idea that reduction of *Adasaurus mongoliensis* and *Velociraptor mongoliensis* to Mongoliensis Barsbold, 1983 and Mongoliensis Osborn, 1924 being unique names if false, as only the citations of a species name are different. If a work were to name, as in Osborn, 1924, two species which are Mongoliensis, then how would opne tell them apart? *Velociraptor* and *Saurornithoides* are hardly referrable to one another. Cheers, Jaime A. Headden ===== Jaime A. Headden Little steps are often the hardest to take. We are too used to making leaps in the face of adversity, that a simple skip is so hard to do. We should all learn to walk soft, walk small, see the world around us rather than zoom by it. "Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969) __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com