Nicholas Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 ScienceDaily (Dec. 10, 2009) — Ancient DNA retrieved from extinct horse species from around the world has challenged one of the textbook examples of evolution -- the fossil record of the horse family Equidae over the past 55 million years Find it HERE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Pristis Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 ScienceDaily (Dec. 10, 2009) — Ancient DNA retrieved from extinct horse species from around the world has challenged one of the textbook examples of evolution -- the fossil record of the horse family Equidae over the past 55 million years Find it HERE! The article itself was not very interesting, lacking details such as species names and ages -- glossed over for popular consumption, I suppose. It did cause me to look at the taxonomy of horses, the 55 Ma of the Family EQUIDAE. I have been using "equid" when I offer to ID images of such fossils here. It occurs to me that using the term "equid" is mis-leading -too general- for horses that are clearly Equus or a closely related species. Equus and a handful of related species from the Miocene to Holocene are members of the Tribe EQUINI. Shouldn't we be calling those fossils "equine" or "equinid"? What do you think? http://pristis.wix.com/the-demijohn-page What seest thou else In the dark backward and abysm of time? ---Shakespeare, The Tempest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 In all matters of clarity in nomenclature, Harry, I defer to your exacting judgment. "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Pristis Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 (edited) In all matters of clarity in nomenclature, Harry, I defer to your exacting judgment. Your deference makes me feel all warm and fuzzy, 'Auspex'. I'm reminded of Winston Churchill's remark (a paraphrase) about "A deferential little person with much to be deferential about." But, I wasn't looking for deference, I am curious about the correct taxonomic term. I don't expect everyone to know the taxonomy of horses, so let's use an example from the birds. (It can't be an exactly parallel example because AFAIK birds are not broken down into tribes yet.) In the Superfamily PASSEROIDEA, there is a Family EMBERIZIDAE, a huge family of small, familiar birds. Within the Family EMBERIZIDAE, there are a number of subfamilies. Let's say you have acquired a Plio-Pleistocene fossil from a sparrow or a towhee, Subfamily EMBERIZINAE. You are pretty confident that this is not a fossil from a blackbird or an oriole, Subfamily ICTERINAE. When writing to the paleontologist at the Smithsonian, once the formal family affiliations under discussion are established, how do you and he refer to your fossil? Is it from an "emberizine," and not from an "icterine"? ...from an "emberizin," and not from an "icterin"? There is a short-hand here within the binomial system. What's correct? Edited December 12, 2009 by Harry Pristis http://pristis.wix.com/the-demijohn-page What seest thou else In the dark backward and abysm of time? ---Shakespeare, The Tempest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 Commonly, in ornithology at least, "ine" is the suffix of choice; "...from an 'emberizine', and not from an 'icterine'" would convey the idea. "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnJ Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 I seem to run into some of the same issues trying to describe and learn more about the names of echinoids. I know just enough to "butcher" them. (Mike Murphy...Frank...where are you?) The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true. - JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tracer Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 well, lessee, to me overly generic isn't the same as misleading. and most errors are due to being overly specific, not overly generic. and i like the term "equid" much better than equini or whatever, so i'll stick with "equid" when i feel all sciencey and "horse" when i don't, and just continue to assume no teeth ever found belong to donkeys or a$ses or zebras, since nobody has ever yet said that's what a tooth was from, that i recall. i've always liked that quotation by emerson - "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds". link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Menser Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 Gee I was gonna go with "Equidae"... o...or just Mr. Ed.. Be true to the reality you create. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Pristis Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 (edited) Gee I was gonna go with "Equidae"... o...or just Mr. Ed.. I knew we'd find an advanced collector who understood the challenge -- Frank has captured the conflict in terminology in just a few words! Frank understands that it's the Family EQUIDAE that includes anchitheres, Tribe EQUINAE, hipparions, protohippines, and the Tribe EQUINI (the last includes "Mr. Ed"). The short-hand of "anchithere" and "hipparionine" are obvious; but, what do you call the horses of the two taxa EQUINAE and EQUINI? Most of the horse teeth we see here on the forum might accurately be called "Mr. Ed". But, what is the appropriate term for the larger tribe of which Mr. Ed is just one of a handful of genera? How about expanding on your answer, Frank. Edited December 12, 2009 by Harry Pristis http://pristis.wix.com/the-demijohn-page What seest thou else In the dark backward and abysm of time? ---Shakespeare, The Tempest 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