piranha Posted May 9, 2019 Share Posted May 9, 2019 7 minutes ago, middevonian said: Edited... much obliged. I don't agree that Platystrophia ponderosa is a synonym of Vinlandostrophia ponderosa. Platystrophia was revised and split and the genus Vinlandostrophia was erected. Revise it if you disagree: LINK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest11596 Posted May 9, 2019 Share Posted May 9, 2019 8 minutes ago, piranha said: Revise it if you disagree: LINK As I understand it: - Platystrophia is still a valid genus - the New World Platystrophia were revised and placed in the new genus Vinlandostrophia How is it possible that the two genera are synonymous? Can you please explain? Not trying to be difficult... just trying to understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranha Posted May 9, 2019 Share Posted May 9, 2019 Two genera are not synonymous. The previous comments were about the species Vinlandostrophia ponderosa. The synonyms are the species of Platystrophia that were placed in Vinlandostrophia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest11596 Posted May 9, 2019 Share Posted May 9, 2019 1 hour ago, piranha said: Two genera are not synonymous. The previous comments were about the species Vinlandostrophia ponderosa. The synonyms are the species of Platystrophia that were placed in Vinlandostrophia. That's my point exactly. What I'm gleaning from your link and Zuykov, M.A., and Harper, D.A.T., 2007 is that Vinlandostrophia ponderosa was placed in the wrong genus of Platystrophia. If that is the case, then in fact, they were never Platystrophia. A thing cannot be synonymous to something it never was. Therefor it should be written Vinlandostrophia ponderosa (formerly in Platystrophia), as convention dictates, not Vinlandostrophia (=Platystrophia) ponderosa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranha Posted May 9, 2019 Share Posted May 9, 2019 The terms are interchangeable and there are papers that use "formerly" and "=" for Vinlandostrophia ponderosa, so convention dictates that either form is acceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranha Posted May 9, 2019 Share Posted May 9, 2019 22 minutes ago, middevonian said: If that is the case, then in fact, they were never Platystrophia. A thing cannot be synonymous to something it never was. The fact they were never Platystrophia does not negate that those species are now regarded as synonyms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest11596 Posted May 9, 2019 Share Posted May 9, 2019 19 minutes ago, piranha said: The terms are interchangeable and there are papers that use "formerly" and "=" for Vinlandostrophia ponderosa, so convention dictates that either is form is acceptable. They shouldn't be. They don't mean the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest11596 Posted May 9, 2019 Share Posted May 9, 2019 6 minutes ago, piranha said: The fact they were never Platystrophia does not negate that those species are now regarded as synonyms. It should. It only creates more confusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranha Posted May 9, 2019 Share Posted May 9, 2019 20 minutes ago, middevonian said: It should. It only creates more confusion. It would be more confusing to any future research to omit the taxonomic history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest11596 Posted May 9, 2019 Share Posted May 9, 2019 28 minutes ago, piranha said: It would be more confusing to any future research to omit the taxonomic history. I didn't suggest that it should be omitted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now