[Previous by date - Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: PROPOSED ARTICLE X - autonyms]
[Next by date - Re: Lumping Spinosauridae Redux]
[Previous by subject - Re: Laurin, 2001-- Phylogenetic Taxonomy]
[Next by subject - Re: Lumping Spinosauridae Redux]
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 13:29:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: [unknown]
To: dinosaur@usc.edu, phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Cc: mike@indexdata.com, mickey_mortimer111@msn.com
Subject: Re: Lumping Spinosauridae Redux
[For those of you on the PhyloCode list, this stems from a discussion=
on
synonymy of *Baryonyx* and *Suchomimus*, and how you can prove this
scientifically. Appologies for cross-posting, but this contains mater=
ial
relevant to both lists.]
Mike Taylor (mike@indexdata.com) wrote:
<To be clear, I fully realise that you are not advocating going to th=
ese
extremes.>
... quite the opposite, in fact, Mickey likes genera :) ...
<But I do think this shows that you can't just rely on monophyly of t=
he
new, broader genus when deciding whether one should be sunk into anot=
her.>
I have a different position, one of first assignment with given
priority. If, in the course of a taxon's assignment, a species is coi=
ned
and assigned to a genus, it pertains to that genus from thenceforth. =
IF,
however, a species is separated from a genus and established in its o=
wn
right, it should be determined to belong to this new genus. Thus
preserving historical artifacts. However, if a species is referred to
another genus, one which is NOT new, and the species had its own uniq=
ue
container (a genus) separate from this new referral, it should remain=
in
its own container, unless the species too is also a synonym.
Example:
*Aublysodon molnari* was originally designated, until at some point=
, it
was recognized that *Aublysodon* was not the "correct" container for
*molnari*; *A. molnari* was assigned a new container, *Stygivenator
molnari,* at which point this referral business ends. However, if
*molnari* belongs to either *libratus,* *sarcophagus,* *torosus,* *re=
x,*
or potentially even *bataar,* we should lose *Stygivenator* in referr=
al of
*molnari* to one of those species as a juvenile form. The only way we=
lose
*Stygivenator* is with loss of *molnari* as a junior objective synony=
m.
Hence, until one can prove that *walkeri* is a senior synonym of
*tenerensis,* the separation of *Baryonyx* and *Suchomimus* is just a=
s
valid. They currently contain equivalent taxa, from the "species" to =
the
"genus," which Mickey himself has yet to determine _how_ these are to=
be
differentiated, only treated them as if they were distinct entities. =
This
is my idea as it stands.
One consideration (Mike Keesey has advocated this in part for the s=
ake
of defining "genera") is that everything above the "traditional"
species-level taxaon is not a named type of clade, but just a clade,
including "genus." In this manner, Clade=3D{*Suchomimus*} is inclusiv=
e of
only *tenerensis,* and all other designated type species are not (thi=
s
would have to have another temporal modifier). By using the same form=
ula,
*Baryonyx* can never include *tenerensis,* even if they were found to=
be
synonymous, because their definitions would mutually prohibit it. I d=
on't
like this solution.
Cheers,
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Jaime A. Headden
Little steps are often the hardest to take. We are too used to mak=
ing 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 arou=
nd us rather than zoom by it.
"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)
=09
=09=09
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail=20