RE: Maidment & Wei, 2006

[Michael Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com>]

Mike Taylor wrote-

> 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.

Well, it's better than nothing.  I just meant I don't count "at least one 
species of stegosaur, but maybe more, and it/they could be the same as 
diagnosable species from formation X, or might not be" as meaning very much.

>> 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.

Nah, because we have a ton of undiagnosable stegosaur bits from formations in 
Europe too.  And only one useful Mid-Late Jurassic formation from North America.

Mickey Mortimer