tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156944512466583246.post6764978231844791990..comments2024-03-18T18:17:34.333+01:00Comments on Theropoda: Manospondylus è un taxon valido? [Aggiornamento]Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156944512466583246.post-9514716138434709872013-06-27T09:11:37.345+02:002013-06-27T09:11:37.345+02:00Many thanks, Matthew!Many thanks, Matthew!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15396504386615815210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156944512466583246.post-5366956534929699092013-06-26T21:33:10.442+02:002013-06-26T21:33:10.442+02:00"ICZN affirming that a scientific name ceases..."ICZN affirming that a scientific name ceases to be valid if it appears that for at least half a century has never been seen nor mentioned in any official scientific publication."<br /><br />This is simply false. That's not what a nomen oblitum is. Half a century has nothing to do with it. A nomen oblitum is a name that has not been used as valid after the year 1899, AND there is a Matt Martyniukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04220900229537564466noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156944512466583246.post-86330826552650523992013-06-14T18:44:02.097+02:002013-06-14T18:44:02.097+02:00'Sappiamo tutti che Tyrannosaurus deve restare...'Sappiamo tutti che Tyrannosaurus deve restare valido per altri motivi, non solo tassonomici...' è una frase ironica verso il pubblico oppure sta ad indicare quella regola dell'ICZN che menzioni a pag. 291 nel tuo volume kindle Tyrannosauroidea: 'Manospondylus non può sostituire Tyrannosaurus per una questione sancita rigorosamente dall'ICZN affermante che un nome scientifico Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15396504386615815210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156944512466583246.post-24448194905243914572013-06-12T12:29:41.294+02:002013-06-12T12:29:41.294+02:00Ok ora ho capito.
In effetti avevo molta confusion...Ok ora ho capito.<br />In effetti avevo molta confusione.<br />Grazie.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03325823296859880944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156944512466583246.post-44259437954590951732013-06-12T12:03:26.302+02:002013-06-12T12:03:26.302+02:00C'è molta confusione in ciò che scrivi.
Un nod...C'è molta confusione in ciò che scrivi.<br />Un nodo è solo un modo di rappresentare una relazione di parentela. Il nodo "T. bataar + T. rex" esprime la relazione di parentela tra le due specie menzionate rispetto ad altre specie incluse nella rappresentazione. La parentela non implica necessariamente una relazione "antenato-discendente", dato che questa ultima relazione Andrea Cauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10855060597677361866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156944512466583246.post-71081928094503217422013-06-12T11:58:06.978+02:002013-06-12T11:58:06.978+02:00Se non mi ricordo male un nodo rappresenta l'a...Se non mi ricordo male un nodo rappresenta l'antenato comune più recente delle specie che sono ubicate ai nodi successivi, quindi T.bataar + T.rex di quali specie sono antenati? <br /> Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03325823296859880944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156944512466583246.post-54712074365709739662013-06-12T11:56:22.463+02:002013-06-12T11:56:22.463+02:00'M. gigas' is defined as a Manospondylus w...'M. gigas' is defined as a Manospondylus with centra slightly taller than wide and with smooth lateral surfaces [sic]. That species definition works only if you first show that the M. gigas combination is less inclusive than the Manospondylus combination. I suspect it was not, since the M. gigas autapomorphies (sensu Cope) are just theropod symplesiomorphies. Also, in absence of two Andrea Cauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10855060597677361866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156944512466583246.post-75106405115479184162013-06-12T11:41:16.219+02:002013-06-12T11:41:16.219+02:00Something similar to your approach has been sugges...Something similar to your approach has been suggested by some proponents of the PhyloCode as well as a replacement for Linneaen binomial ranks. You would retain a sort of "binomial" by simply referring to the immediate parent clade before the species name.<br /><br />So, if Manospondylus is a clade that includes both Tyrannosaurus and Tarbosaurus, and if both of those can be diagnosed Matt Martyniukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04220900229537564466noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156944512466583246.post-18055482951646931542013-06-12T09:22:06.016+02:002013-06-12T09:22:06.016+02:00The problem probably stems also from the Linnean r...The problem probably stems also from the Linnean rank concept: if Titanosaurus is considered just as a clade diagnosed apomorphically and not as a rank lower than family and "just above" species, nobody would find obsolescence as a problem.<br />In my opinion, Manospondylus as "the clade of theropods with that kind of dorsal vertebrae as M.gigas holotype" is not problematic atAndrea Cauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10855060597677361866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156944512466583246.post-1940935034153106502013-06-11T23:21:21.551+02:002013-06-11T23:21:21.551+02:00This attitude of diagnosis=definition seems to fol...This attitude of diagnosis=definition seems to follow the spirit of the ICZN, but is usually ignored by most vertebrate paleo workers. If remains which were diagnosed seem to apply to multiple species or genera (character obsoleteness), the original specimen is usually thrown in the trash. Take the example of Titanosaurus--now usually considered "dubious" and ignored in taxonomy becauseMatt Martyniukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04220900229537564466noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156944512466583246.post-33893480910009745442013-06-11T23:15:09.806+02:002013-06-11T23:15:09.806+02:00I don't see why. The suggestion that it could ...I don't see why. The suggestion that it could be T. bataar is meaningless until somebody demonstrates T. bataar is present in Lancian North America. It's a fine line, but I think stratigraphy and biogeography certainly need to be taken into account in taxonomy where it's this obviously significant.Matt Martyniukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04220900229537564466noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156944512466583246.post-18303853915582409862013-06-11T16:50:44.409+02:002013-06-11T16:50:44.409+02:00La tassonomia non si basa sui desideri di conserva...La tassonomia non si basa sui desideri di conservare dei nomi.<br />In ogni caso, Brontosaurus non è "abolito": http://theropoda.blogspot.it/2013/03/miti-e-leggende-post-moderne-sui.html<br /><br />PS: paradosso della storia, coloro che vorrebbero "ripristinare" Brontosaurus si appellano allo stesso criterio in base al quale occorrerebbe "abolire" Tyrannosaurus.Andrea Cauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10855060597677361866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156944512466583246.post-55579496902301850642013-06-11T16:44:32.546+02:002013-06-11T16:44:32.546+02:00è già un peccato aver abolito il brontosauro ! non...è già un peccato aver abolito il brontosauro ! non toglieteci anche il tirannosauro !Marcohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04862919987331705703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156944512466583246.post-78410178702732523042013-06-11T13:34:19.891+02:002013-06-11T13:34:19.891+02:00si grazie, in effetti dopo aver scritto mi sono re...si grazie, in effetti dopo aver scritto mi sono reso conto che la questione messa in termini geografici ovviamente non ha senso.<br />è da queste cose che si riconosce il vero profano :)<br />Emiliano Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156944512466583246.post-33709751403302815922013-06-11T12:03:39.181+02:002013-06-11T12:03:39.181+02:00La geografia non conta: l'importante è la diag...La geografia non conta: l'importante è la diagnosi. Inoltre, non è Manospondylus che deve identificarsi con Tarbosaurus o Tyrannosaurus, sono questi due che si devono conformare a Manospondylus, dato che questo è il primo nome usato per quel tipo di animale.<br />Se le vertebre dorsali degli animali chiamati usualmente 'Tyrannosaurus' e 'Tarbosaurus' rispecchiano la diagnosi Andrea Cauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10855060597677361866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156944512466583246.post-78728665890244204142013-06-11T11:56:46.713+02:002013-06-11T11:56:46.713+02:00post fantastico... sarò malato, ma, forse proprio ...post fantastico... sarò malato, ma, forse proprio perchè sono un profano, un post del genere mi entusiasma per il rigore metodologico e perchè permette di intuire tutta la ricchezza e la complessità che c'è dietro un lavoro del genere.<br /><br />per quanto riguarda il Tarbosaurus oltre alla questione tassonomica (Tarbosaurus Bataar = Tyrannosaurus Bataar)non c'è anche una questione Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156944512466583246.post-75813175805021969382013-06-11T10:21:37.625+02:002013-06-11T10:21:37.625+02:00Manospondylus may be the name of the Tarbosaurus-T...Manospondylus may be the name of the Tarbosaurus-Tyrannosaurus clade. Since many authors call Tarbosaurus bataar as Tyrannosaurus bataar. So, it's Manospondylus bataar.Andrea Cauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10855060597677361866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156944512466583246.post-28255457510098304802013-06-11T10:18:24.903+02:002013-06-11T10:18:24.903+02:00While it's probable Manospondylus is synonymou...While it's probable Manospondylus is synonymous with Tyrannosaurus, wasn't Tarbosaurus about as large? Thus we'd have to bring in geography as a character, which isn't generally allowed.Mickey Mortimerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08831823442911513851noreply@blogger.com