[no subject]

 >   In the discussion of lycopod trees it became evident that the
 > spore and the plant have different names, even though they are
 > the same organism.  Further, it developed, there are as many as
 > 5, 6, 7, or more names for the same organism, depending on what
 > part is being denoted.  These names have all appearance of being
 > separate species, but in fact they all refer to the same species.
 >   I couldn't help but think of apatosaurus/brontosaurus when
 thinking
 > of these plants and their many names.  I suppose we give more
 attention
 > to the issue of naming the dinosaur species because they are *big*.
 > But I wonder who gave the paleobotanists special dispensation so
 that
 > they are exempt from following the rules of scientific naming.

The matter is not quite that simple.  First, the Rules of
Botanical Nomenclature are different than the Rules of Zoological
Nomenclature, so there may not be a violation (I do not have a
copy of the botanical rules, so I do not know what rules apply
here).

Secondly, there is a long tradition in paleobotany, as opposed to
paleozoology, of using organ genera.  The reason is that whole
plants rarely fossilize, so the true associations of the different
organs are only established with difficulty.  In the case of
Carboniferous lycopods, with their abundant fossil record, the
organ associations have been well established, but that is an
exception.

A more typical situation is that found in the Hell Creek Formation,
where there are elm-like leaves and vaguely elm-like seeds, but
no good evidence that the two have anything to do with one another.
(And, due to the subtle differences between the fossil seeds and
those of living elms, doubts are certainly warrented).  In this
case, treating the two sets of fossils as one species is not a
good idea.


swf@elsegundoca.ncr.com         sarima@netcom.com

The peace of God be with you.