RE: Maidment & Wei, 2006

[Mike Taylor <mike@indexdata.com>]

Michael Mortimer writes:
 > There are lots of dinosaurian nomina dubia and unnamed specimens
 > which are near certainly distinct from named species based on
 > provenence alone if nothing else, but since we can't prove this
 > validity, it doesn't mean much for diversity studies.

I disagree!  In fact, I would say the exact opposite: that _although_
these specimens cannot be diagnosed and named, this "cryptic
diversity" _is_ significant for diversity studies -- and it's a
failing of diversity studies up till now (including my own) that they
only count taxonomically valid animals.

See a version-1 Tetrapod Zoology post (by Darren Naish) for more on
this:
http://darrennaish.blogspot.com/2006/03/cryptic-dinosaur-diversity-real-taxon.html

 > I agree the concluding sentences of Maidment and Wei are poorly
 > worded, but I think their main point was that the _known_ diversity
 > of stegosaurs was not significantly higher in China than in Europe
 > or America, contra Dong.

Au contraire, _known_ diversity _was_ higher in China; it's _named_
diversity that is not.

 _/|_    ___________________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor    <mike@indexdata.com>    http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "I've got an allergy to Perrier, daylight and responsibility"
         -- Marillion, "Incommunicado"