[Previous by date - Re: New Dinosauricon Taxon Pages: _Therizinosauria_]
[Next by date - Re: "Qilongia" & chains across the phylogenetic grass]
[Previous by subject - Re: New Dinosauricon Taxon Pages: _Therizinosauria_]
[Next by subject - Re: New critics]
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 13:29:26 -0800 (PST)
From: "T. Michael Keesey" <mightyodinn@yahoo.com>
To: dinosaur@usc.edu, PhyloCode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: New Dinosauricon Taxon Pages: _Therizinosauria_
--- "Jaime A. Headden" <qilongia@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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. [...] > Only three new names would be required of these two taxa: For *D. > carnegii*, for *D. hayi*, and for *A. louisae* ... I still say that if you were to give every single species a unique praenomen, the second part of the name would become useless, and there would be no good reason to keep it apart from sentimental attachment. > 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 (lower case _mongoliensis_ would be preferrable, I think.) > being unique names if false, as only the citations of a species name are > different. But, you see, the citation *is* part of the (full) name! > 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. This is, I think, the major problem with this system, but it's not insurmountable. Unless we want to rename one of them, it would merely require additional notation as part of the full name. Perhaps something like: _mongoliensis_ Osborn 1924 (typus _Velociraptor_) _mongoliensis_ Osborn 1924 (typus _Saurornithoides_) Thereafter in the text they could be abbreviated as _S. mongoliensis_ and _V. mongoliensis_. If they had not been type species you could use "ref." instead of "typus". Imaginary example (since I can't think of a real one at the moment): _virginianus_ Author 1900 (ref. _Alphacladus_) _virginianus_ Author 1900 (ref. _Betacladus_) And if the second one had been subsequently referred elsewhere (say, _Gammacladus_), that would be mentioned, and it could then be abbreviated as _G. virginianus_. Just an idea; I'd like to hear of others. ===== =====> T. Michael Keesey <keesey@bigfoot.com> =====> The Dinosauricon <http://dinosauricon.com> =====> BloodySteak <http://bloodysteak.com> =====> Instant Messenger <Ric Blayze> ===== __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com