|
|
Post by Horridus on May 26, 2011 15:55:16 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by arioch on May 28, 2011 16:28:30 GMT
Interesting. Sure it is a maniraptoran?
I love how in paleontology we can believe for decades that some tiny bones -or even just one vertebrae- belonged to a fierce theropod and we make tons of full reconstructions based upon it, but suddenly, one day turns out to be a duckbill or small sauropod. And nobody gets fired for that! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by sbell on May 28, 2011 16:57:11 GMT
Interesting. Sure it is a maniraptoran? I love how in paleontology we can believe for decades that some tiny bones -or even just one vertebrae- belonged to a fierce theropod and we make tons of full reconstructions based upon it, but suddenly, one day turns out to be a duckbill or small sauropod. And nobody gets fired for that! ;D Well, hey, there is a large whale that was first thought to be a sea lizard. These things happen--that's why it's a science. |
|
|
|
Post by neovenator08 on May 28, 2011 17:18:12 GMT
Basilosaurus, right? It's a shame they can't rename dinosaurs if they find out they aren't what they were first thought to be.
Anyway, I hope it is a raptor - could be related to Nuthetes!
|
|
|
|
Post by sbell on May 28, 2011 18:09:28 GMT
Basilosaurus, right? It's a shame they can't rename dinosaurs if they find out they aren't what they were first thought to be. Anyway, I hope it is a raptor - could be related to Nuthetes! Could you imagine the headaches, trying to hunt down information on a prehistoric animal (or really, any organism, living or extinct) if the name changed every time the taxonomic opinion changed? All of the 'birds' could theoretically be changed to have -saurus in their names because of their recent identification as dinosaurs! Plus, those names often give interesting historical information--like Basilosaurus giving it's original idea (sea reptile) or Proceratosaurus originally being thought of as related to Ceratosaurus (and now identified as a tyrannosaurid). That's the whole purpose of these names--to have a universal name that transcends various languages and taxonomies so that the species (or whatever level) can be discussed easily. |
|
|
|
Post by eriorguez on May 30, 2011 9:18:07 GMT
The thing is, one can loophole things. Basilosaurus is the type specimen, one could assign to Zeuglodon the rest of specimens with careful handling, and nobody with a bit of subjective thinking (which, all in all, is what taxonomy ends up boiling down to) would touch it.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on May 30, 2011 11:58:22 GMT
The thing is, one can loophole things. Basilosaurus is the type specimen, one could assign to Zeuglodon the rest of specimens with careful handling, and nobody with a bit of subjective thinking (which, all in all, is what taxonomy ends up boiling down to) would touch it. True, though for that to work in practice you'd need to show that the type specimen is a nomen dubium and so the other specimens cannot be justifiably placed in the same species. Once more people start defining species as clades based on type specimens (which some already do) this kind of thing will be impossible, for better or worse... |
|
|
|
Post by sbell on May 30, 2011 13:14:10 GMT
The thing is, one can loophole things. Basilosaurus is the type specimen, one could assign to Zeuglodon the rest of specimens with careful handling, and nobody with a bit of subjective thinking (which, all in all, is what taxonomy ends up boiling down to) would touch it. True, though for that to work in practice you'd need to show that the type specimen is a nomen dubium and so the other specimens cannot be justifiably placed in the same species. Once more people start defining species as clades based on type specimens (which some already do) this kind of thing will be impossible, for better or worse... So by that logic we would ignore the type specimen to rename the rest of the specimens, using a different type specimen? If they can be assigned to the same species originally, then you would just be creating a junior synonym (just like Zeuglodon is to Basilosaurus) when a different worker studies them anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on May 30, 2011 14:54:55 GMT
True, though for that to work in practice you'd need to show that the type specimen is a nomen dubium and so the other specimens cannot be justifiably placed in the same species. Once more people start defining species as clades based on type specimens (which some already do) this kind of thing will be impossible, for better or worse... So by that logic we would ignore the type specimen to rename the rest of the specimens, using a different type specimen? If they can be assigned to the same species originally, then you would just be creating a junior synonym (just like Zeuglodon is to Basilosaurus) when a different worker studies them anyway. Right. The thing is people might disagree over whether or not new specimens can be assigned to the old species if its type specimen is too poor or not characteristic enough. For example specimens now named Bistaheversor were originally referred to Aublysodon. But Aublysodon is based on teeth alone and most people consider it a nomen dubium. So the rest of the specimens were given a new name, and the type (Aublysodon) is basically ignored by everyone. (It's from a different formation so it is probably a different species anyway). |
|
|
|
Post by sbell on May 30, 2011 15:22:03 GMT
So by that logic we would ignore the type specimen to rename the rest of the specimens, using a different type specimen? If they can be assigned to the same species originally, then you would just be creating a junior synonym (just like Zeuglodon is to Basilosaurus) when a different worker studies them anyway. Right. The thing is people might disagree over whether or not new specimens can be assigned to the old species if its type specimen is too poor or not characteristic enough. For example specimens now named Bistaheversor were originally referred to Aublysodon. But Aublysodon is based on teeth alone and most people consider it a nomen dubium. So the rest of the specimens were given a new name, and the type (Aublysodon) is basically ignored by everyone. (It's from a different formation so it is probably a different species anyway). But that's what referred specimens are for--if a skull is found with those teeth, for example, it doesn't require a new genus; a paratype specimen will work as well. In fact, there may be a challenge to erecting a new taxon if better, associated material is found for that very reason. Besides, in the case of Basilosaurus, that was not the case--the skeleton was complete enough. |
|
