Message 2004-10-0145: Re: Lumping Spinosauridae Redux

Tue, 21 Sep 2004 13:29:54 -0700 (PDT)

[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]
Subject: Re: Lumping Spinosauridae Redux

[For those of you on the PhyloCode list, this stems from a discussion=
synonymy of *Baryonyx* and *Suchomimus*, and how you can prove this
scientifically. Appologies for cross-posting, but this contains mater=
relevant to both lists.]

Mike Taylor ( wrote:

<To be clear, I fully realise that you are not advocating going to th=

  ... quite the opposite, in fact, Mickey likes genera :) ...

<But I do think this shows that you can't just rely on monophyly of t=
new, broader genus when deciding whether one should be sunk into anot=

  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=
and assigned to a genus, it pertains to that genus from thenceforth. =
however, a species is separated from a genus and established in its o=
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=
container (a genus) separate from this new referral, it should remain=
its own container, unless the species too is also a synonym.


  *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=
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=
*Stygivenator* is with loss of *molnari* as a junior objective synony=

  Hence, until one can prove that *walkeri* is a senior synonym of
*tenerensis,* the separation of *Baryonyx* and *Suchomimus* is just a=
valid. They currently contain equivalent taxa, from the "species" to =
"genus," which Mickey himself has yet to determine _how_ these are to=
differentiated, only treated them as if they were distinct entities. =
is my idea as it stands.

  One consideration (Mike Keesey has advocated this in part for the s=
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=
would have to have another temporal modifier). By using the same form=
*Baryonyx* can never include *tenerensis,* even if they were found to=
synonymous, because their definitions would mutually prohibit it. I d=
like this solution.


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)

Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!


Feedback to <> is welcome!