Re: Labrosaurus (was RE: birds and dinosaurs)

["Jaime A. Headden" <qilongia@yahoo.com>]

Mickey Mortimer (Mickey_Mortimer111@msn.com) wrote:

<But what if someone refers a specimen from a different locality to their
new taxon?  Then it's a paratype, but cannot be a topotype.>

  No. It may not be a topotype, but a paratype MUST be designated at the
same time as the holotype. One cannot _later_ deisgnated a paratype UNLESS
in the same publication a syntype series is separated into a lectotype and
paratype(s), as has occured with *Coelophysis.* The Ghost Ranch material
can be neither topotypic nor paratypic. The nature of "later referral"
means that it cannot become part of the type series (holo-, para-, lecto-,
plastoholo-, plastosyn-, plastopara-, neo-, or syntypes). IF, however, as
one may assume, they are naming a new species and determine a holotype
from one locality, and determine that another specimen from another
locality belongs to the same species, it is usually a bad practice to
refer to that as a paratype. Most workers today determining paratypes tend
to do so from the same locality, though the alternative has occured.
However, the ICZN currently recognizes, as in Article 73.1, that a
paratype is a part of the syntype or type series -- meaning, it, like the
syntype series, should be topotypic.

  The ICZN defines these words as:

  "paratype: each specimen of a type series (q.v.) from which neither a
holotype nor a lectotype has been designated [Arts. 72.1.2, 73.2, 74]. The
syntypes collectively constitute the name-bearing type."

  and

  "topotype (n., topotypic, a): a term, not regulated by the Code, for a
specimen originating from the type locality of the species or subspecies
to which it is thought to belong, whether or not the specimen is part of
the type series."

  The broadness of the latter term means that is _cannot_ be regulated as
it is a simple descriptor.

<My philosophy is that through discussion, A. "whitei"'s proper status as
a junior synonym of A. fragilis can be established in the public's mind.
That's a better situation than the name floating about in obscurity where
people might think it's potentially valid.  Maybe the Phylocode will end
worries of officially naming nomina nuda due to misunderstandings or greed
with its proposed name registration system.>

  Through simple discussion of the opinion determined through a worker's
thesis. This was not demonstrated otherwise. The complex of features used
to define Pickering's taxon may be unique for a species, even if their
distribution is varied through recognized *fragilis.* This does not
invalidate the effective reference of the name. The name used is a nomen
nudum to some, but is a nomen validum to others, and has been used as a
referenced name by still others. This makes the issue a LOT more
problematic. By ICZN rules, Pickering's work is valid. This makes the
rejection of nomenclature a _public_ act that tends to be at odds with the
detirmination from other workers of their own less than prevalent
publications. Personal publication of Olshevsky's work, for instance, and
the nomenclature therein, has been much more broadly received than
Pickering's, though both were done in the same essential manner. Would
this not mean that we should either regard Pickering's work as valid, as
one would ANYONE's work via the ICZN rules? Or reject the ICZN, and
therefore non-hypocritically all of it's rules including issues of
priority, and be able to determine to one's own satisfaction what names
are "valid"? It's a pandora's box that I SWEAR few people want to touch
with a ten-foot pole. Unlike the PhyloCode, the ICZN is recognized by
nearly EVERY zoological institution and publication, and most publications
require nomenclature to be in accord with it to be accepted. Until this
changes, hypocrisy should be put aside along with personal feelings of
valid work. It either is, and for reason A, or it is not, for reason B,
and anything that corresponds with either reasons A or B should be
correspondently treated, no matter what. Otherwise, back to the chaotic,
and phenetic, use of ranks as being just as valid.

  Cheers,

=====
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!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail