tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post8196748753975972918..comments2024-03-17T01:48:59.504-07:00Comments on The Theropod Database Blog: "The Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs" - The ReviewMickey Mortimerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08831823442911513851noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post-66569768166116381082011-01-04T08:41:57.876-08:002011-01-04T08:41:57.876-08:00I got this and The Dinosauria for Christmas as I&#...I got this and The Dinosauria for Christmas as I'm looking at going back to school to get into the field of paleontology. Skimming through I noticed some vagueness to the descriptions myself but I have a feeling that possessing and reading this will be beneficial in cross referencing sources despite its vagueness. One thing I immediately flipped to was the Marginocephalian section and I noticed he definitely takes Horner et al.'s work on Pachycephalosaurus and Triceratops to heart in his descriptions and models. That's my main interest in the field so of course that had to be what I skimmed first.Ian N. Costhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07555644427886982224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post-6623182213259234972010-10-06T08:22:38.579-07:002010-10-06T08:22:38.579-07:00I always assumed the ICZN's availability const...<i> I always assumed the ICZN's availability constraints counted for combinations too, so that if I stupidly sink Velociraptor into Tyrannosaurus on my website as T. mongoliensis, it wouldn't stop someone else from naming a new species of Tyrannosaurus T. mongoliensis.</i><br /><br />Gets a bit complicated here :-). In that case, the names would be secondary homonyms (homonyms due to a combination change rather than conflict of original combinations), which only count as such if the two species are "currently" regarded as belonging to the same genus. So if the other person doesn't regard <i>'Velociraptor' mongoliensis</i> as belonging to <i>Tyrannosaurus</i>, they could potentially argue that there wasn't a conflict (but this is one of the reasons why there's a recommendation that authors avoid using species names that have been used in closely related genera for new species if they can).<br /><br />The ICBN, offhand, doesn't distinguish between primary and secondary homonyms (as far as I know). But the ICBN <i>does</i> have requirements for regarding a name as 'validly published'.Christopher Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11075565866351612441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post-45174590905793908882010-10-06T07:14:22.966-07:002010-10-06T07:14:22.966-07:00Overall, I agree. As a fairly-well educated layma...Overall, I agree. As a fairly-well educated layman, I was really impressed by the pictures (the only real flaw I saw was the "bunny hands" on the one painting), but really let down by the text - I thought it would be more along the lines of PDW. I got bored quite quickly reading the text, and just started leafing through to look at the pictures. <br /><br />I think the best format would have taken something from Holtz's recent book (each of his "groupings" (can't say clade for obvious reasons) could have had its own sub-chapter, with a table listing basic information like size, fossil formation, particularly distinctive characteristics, etc. And then include a page or two of information about the "group," along with reconstructions. This way repetition would be cut way down, and there would be more room for exposition about the various taxa - which is what a dino-enthusiast probably wants anyway.Karl Zimmermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11141706877708859363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post-50454399693051415132010-10-06T04:30:29.504-07:002010-10-06T04:30:29.504-07:00Hmm, that's an interesting point. I always as...Hmm, that's an interesting point. I always assumed the ICZN's availability constraints counted for combinations too, so that if I stupidly sink Velociraptor into Tyrannosaurus on my website as T. mongoliensis, it wouldn't stop someone else from naming a new species of Tyrannosaurus T. mongoliensis. "Nomen nudum" is probably the wrong term for such a thing, but surely there are such things as unofficial combinations.<br /><br />What about when Paul lists something like "Appalachiosaurus (or Albertosaurus) montgomeriensis" for a taxon that has only been called Appalachiosaurus montgomeriensis in the literature? Is Albertosaurus montogomeriensis a valid combination which Paul should be cited for? Or does the ambiguity count against it?Mickey Mortimerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08831823442911513851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post-33454529854104059532010-10-06T04:29:45.185-07:002010-10-06T04:29:45.185-07:00"I'd recommend it for young readers who a..."I'd recommend it for young readers who aren't ready for Glut's encyclopedias or The Dinosauria yet."<br /><br />For the same readers, don't forget Holtz and Rey's fabulous (and ridiculously cheap) dinosaur encyclopaedia.Mike Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06039663158335543317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post-6976071186903230412010-10-06T04:16:16.728-07:002010-10-06T04:16:16.728-07:00So perhaps Paul's new combinations are all nom...<i> So perhaps Paul's new combinations are all nomina nuda.</i><br /><br />Erk. Mickey. You know better than this. They're not <i>nomina nuda</i> because that term is meaningless in this context. As far as the ICZN is concerned, availability only applies to species and genera names separately, not to combinations. Combinations are only regulated in terms of spelling and avoiding homonymy, but, once a species name is published, you can move it into any damn genus you like without producing a "new name".<br /><br />In practice, it doesn't make any real difference, of course, though it does bug me a little that zoologists have a history of being a bit sloppy when it comes to producing new combinations without necessarily specifying what the animal was called earlier.Christopher Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11075565866351612441noreply@blogger.com