Jump to content

Recommended Posts

WhodamanHD
3 hours ago, Al Dente said:

“Isurus” escheri has been placed into its own genus. It is now Carcharomodus escheri. “A partial Skeleton of a new Lamniform Mackerel Shark from the Miocene of Europe”.

That’s a good thing to know, is it still thought to have evolved from C. Hastilis

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SailingAlongToo
On 2/23/2018 at 10:52 PM, WhodamanHD said:

IMO the serrations and some differences in the morphology should denote a seperate genus, but I still think they should all be “Makos” including the extant great white. But I’ve been met with opposition when postulating it before, really its semantics in the end. We humans need to get around to defining a species and a genus, and how general each type is.

 

And, then there is recognizing and accepting variability among species. I will offer Homo sapiens as an example. Significant differences exist between a Mayan, an Eastern European, Asians and someone from sub-Saharan Africa, including skull size and shape, bone structure, appearance. etc. A million years from now, I wonder if future paleontologists or anthropologists will/would "lump" these examples in the same species as we are now, or would they "split" them out into different Genus and species because of the obvious differences.

 

In the end, lumpers are going to lump things together into neat groups, splitters want to split things off by making new or other groups and some people aren't happy either way and want to change things (most of the time with valid scientific reasoning, though not always without disagreement among the scientific community.)

 

With the megalodon, I simply refer to it as a megalodon. I refer to hastalis as hastalis. At least on TFF and the fossil circles I frequent, most everyone knows what I'm talking about and referring to when I use the species. I realize that is not always the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WhodamanHD

@SailingAlongToo that’s getting into biological species concept vs Morphological species concept. Almost any two dog breeds can reproduce but their morphology is completely different, whereas copes grey tree frog/grey tree frogs (identical in almost every respect except chromosomes) usually produce infertile offspring. The Linnaean system is a artificial construct, nature does not obey it; therefore it’s rarely works in every case. But at least we can try to get it reasonably uniform. I just say C. hastilis, makes it work for both sides. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sagebrush Steve
1 hour ago, WhodamanHD said:

I just say C. hastilis, makes it work for both sides. 

But aren’t you only supposed to do that after you have first said the full name? :headscratch:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WhodamanHD
4 minutes ago, Sagebrush Steve said:

But aren’t you only supposed to do that after you have first said the full name? :headscratch:

If it’s miocene I assume everyone will know what I’m talking about (not some sort of plant or whatever non-shark C. Hastilis s exist). The genus name is transient, who knows what it will be a year from now (as it should be, science is a perpetually evolving subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ynot
22 minutes ago, Sagebrush Steve said:

But aren’t you only supposed to do that after you have first said the full name? :headscratch:

Yes, but many do not follow the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kane
37 minutes ago, Macrophyseter said:

Yes, it is inproper to abbreviate the genus without stating what it stands for first, but in a forum, I think most people would know what it already stands for and properness isnt that nessesary.

You mean "improper." ;) Using the correct form is part of what we strive to maintain here as a standard of excellence, and as part of our longstanding reputation as a repository of knowledge. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ynot
43 minutes ago, Macrophyseter said:

I think most people would know what it already stands for and properness isnt that nessesary.

What about the newbies that have never heard of these things.:wacko:

 

9 minutes ago, Kane said:

 Using the correct form is part of what we strive to maintain here as a standard of excellence, and as part of our longstanding reputation as a repository of knowledge.

Definitely do not want to forget the forums standard of excellence!:fistbump:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coco

Hi,

On 25/02/2018 at 10:58 PM, Macrophyseter said:

Yes, it is improper to abbreviate the genus without stating what it stands for first, but in a forum, I think most people would know what it already stands for and properness isnt that nessesary.

 

On 25/02/2018 at 11:34 PM, Kane said:

You mean "improper." ;) Using the correct form is part of what we strive to maintain here as a standard of excellence, and as part of our longstanding reputation as a repository of knowledge. :) 

And what about foreigner who haven't necessary your species in their country, or the one who are interested in coral, trilobits, sea urchins, herbivore ? Don't they have the right to learn new things ? C. hastalis is probably Carcharias hastalis or Cosmopolitodus hastalis if it doesn't change, but would not it be Carcharodon hastalis or Carcharocles hastalis for a beginning or a not specialist of the sharks ? Especially when we read that the ex Isurus is of the family of the great white...

 

One of the great strengths of this forum is that it is the richest in all internet and that it is an inexhaustible source of learning and knowledge. Then a small effort is nothing with regard to what it can bring to each of us ! ;)

 

Coco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sixgill pete

@HoppeHunting I always have and probably always will refer to C. hastalis as a "mako" or broad tooth "mako". It's habit as @siteseer stated. Many of us do that. It does not mean we are not aware of the current classification, it is just habit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×