|
|
Post by paleoferroequine on Nov 19, 2010 20:40:57 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sid on Nov 19, 2010 21:04:49 GMT
Sigh... Paleontologists really like to play with taxonomy, don't they?  |
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Nov 19, 2010 22:55:23 GMT
Haha people wanna lump up ceratopsians and pachycephalosaurs and break up iguanodon.
|
|
|
|
Post by foxilized on Nov 20, 2010 13:27:44 GMT
Sigh... Paleontologists really like to play with taxonomy, don't they? Yeah. I previously speoke about my theory in the trike-toro thread. I think the reason for this strange fever is that NAMING is what actually can make a scientific "inmortal". If you are not lucky enough to find your own new species, then steal someone else's old name and change it for one of your choice. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Nov 20, 2010 18:29:34 GMT
The point is Iguanodon became a bit of a wastebasket taxon, like Megalosaurus and Cetiosaurus did. As Darren clearly explains a lot of these animals do deserve generic separation as they're pretty different.
You might claim that scientists are cynically becoming 'splitters' just to make a name for themselves, but often it is more useful to give these animals different names, so you know which one you're talking about. For example if we accept Greg Paul's idea and lump Styracosaurus into Centrosaurus, you'll have less of an idea of what I mean when I say 'Centrosaurus'. I'd have to bring in the species. If I say 'Styracosaurus' you immediately know what I mean.
This was an argument that Adam put forth when I interviewed him, anyway. ;D Of course it's all subjective.
|
|
|
|
Post by sid on Nov 20, 2010 18:43:42 GMT
Sigh... Paleontologists really like to play with taxonomy, don't they? Yeah. I previously speoke about my theory in the trike-toro thread. I think the reason for this strange fever is that NAMING is what actually can make a scientific "inmortal". If you are not lucky enough to find your own new species, then steal someone else's old name and change it for one of your choice. ;D Ah ah, totally agree ;D |
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Nov 20, 2010 18:46:49 GMT
The point is Iguanodon became a bit of a wastebasket taxon, like Megalosaurus and Cetiosaurus did. As Darren clearly explains a lot of these animals do deserve generic separation as they're pretty different. You might claim that scientists are cynically becoming 'splitters' just to make a name for themselves, but often it is more useful to give these animals different names, so you know which one you're talking about. For example if we accept Greg Paul's idea and lump Styracosaurus into Centrosaurus, you'll have less of an idea of what I mean when I say 'Centrosaurus'. I'd have to bring in the species. If I say 'Styracosaurus' you immediately know what I mean. This was an argument that Adam put forth when I interviewed him, anyway. ;D Of course it's all subjective. Maybe it speaks to the idea that, for paleo-taxa, 'species' are nearly indefinable--seeing as we can't really tell which ones are interbreeding, etc. I have always been of the mind that genera are useful for differentiating distinct animals; perhaps 'species' would be more useful in differentiating geographic or temporally distinct organisms with otherwise similar morphologies. |
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Nov 21, 2010 1:37:07 GMT
The point is Iguanodon became a bit of a wastebasket taxon, like Megalosaurus and Cetiosaurus did. As Darren clearly explains a lot of these animals do deserve generic separation as they're pretty different. You might claim that scientists are cynically becoming 'splitters' just to make a name for themselves, but often it is more useful to give these animals different names, so you know which one you're talking about. For example if we accept Greg Paul's idea and lump Styracosaurus into Centrosaurus, you'll have less of an idea of what I mean when I say 'Centrosaurus'. I'd have to bring in the species. If I say 'Styracosaurus' you immediately know what I mean. This was an argument that Adam put forth when I interviewed him, anyway. ;D Of course it's all subjective.  When do we get to see the interview? |
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on Nov 21, 2010 12:04:30 GMT
The point is Iguanodon became a bit of a wastebasket taxon, like Megalosaurus and Cetiosaurus did. As Darren clearly explains a lot of these animals do deserve generic separation as they're pretty different. You might claim that scientists are cynically becoming 'splitters' just to make a name for themselves, but often it is more useful to give these animals different names, so you know which one you're talking about. For example if we accept Greg Paul's idea and lump Styracosaurus into Centrosaurus, you'll have less of an idea of what I mean when I say 'Centrosaurus'. I'd have to bring in the species. If I say 'Styracosaurus' you immediately know what I mean. This was an argument that Adam put forth when I interviewed him, anyway. ;D Of course it's all subjective. I agree with this 100%. If you want to keep all these species in the genus Iguanodon, that's fine. But then the word Iguanodon becomes totally meaningless. It would be like saying your favorite insect is "the beetle." That could mean just about anything. And it's not a very good analogy for the Trike/Toro thing. Nobody is saying these represent growth stages of one species. These are very different species of animals (everyone has always accepted the species separation) separated by millions of years and in some cases, thousands of miles. |
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Nov 21, 2010 16:30:43 GMT
When do we get to see the interview? When I've submitted it and it's been marked. So it's going to be January I'm afraid. I don't want it to be on the internet before it's marked... |
|
When do we get to see the interview?
