| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision |
| taxonomy [19/03/2023 10:46] – mike_gss | taxonomy [21/03/2023 09:03] (current) – mike_gss |
|---|
| [Note: in the conventional literature, once the species has been fully named in an article’s text (genus and species) the genus name is often abbreviated in subsequent instances in the same article. In our example this would therefore be //P. pseudobulloides//. Such abbreviations may also be used on charts and diagrams.] | [Note: in the conventional literature, once the species has been fully named in an article’s text (genus and species) the genus name is often abbreviated in subsequent instances in the same article. In our example this would therefore be //P. pseudobulloides//. Such abbreviations may also be used on charts and diagrams.] |
| |
| In the normal course of events in biostratigraphy, the species name (i.e. //pseudobulloides//) will generally be quite stable… unless the same organism is separately described under two different names by two different authors without the other’s knowledge. The one described and published first takes precedence, the second (or later) name then becomes what is known as a synonym. This can happen when scientists working in two different countries on the same material may not be aware of the other’s work and who publish in separate journals. The vast majority of fossil species were described in the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries when international scientific co-operation and information interchange were much less prevalent than they are now and this situation arose many times. Scientists who have come along later, so to speak, have had to deal with these historical anomalies every since. See also comments on “Splitters and Lumpers” below. | In the normal course of events in biostratigraphy, the species name (i.e. //pseudobulloides//) will generally be quite stable… unless the same organism is separately described under two different names by two different authors without the other’s knowledge. The one described and published first takes precedence, the second (or later) name then becomes what is known as a **synonym**. This can happen when scientists working in two different countries on the same material may not be aware of the other’s work and who publish in separate journals. The vast majority of fossil species were described in the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries when international scientific co-operation and information interchange were much less prevalent than they are now and this situation arose many times. Scientists who have come along later, so to speak, have had to deal with these historical anomalies every since. See also comments on “Splitters and Lumpers” below. |
| |
| Unlike the species name, the Genus name, however, may change relatively frequently, based on changes in how groups of organisms are classified either based on functional similarities or on evolutionary relationships as discussed above. In our example above, the same taxon (the species “concept”) has been referred to variously, and for quite valid reasons at the time, as: | Unlike the species name, the Genus name, however, may change relatively frequently, based on changes in how groups of organisms are classified either based on functional similarities or on evolutionary relationships as discussed above. In our example above, the same taxon (the species “concept”) has been referred to variously, and for quite valid reasons at the time, as: |
| **Subjective Synonymy** | **Subjective Synonymy** |
| |
| A different type of synonymy also exists where a paleontologist has miss-identified a specimen in their material, but published it anyway. Later, another paleontologist comes along and re-examines the first paleontologist's illustrations (or preferably the original material) and decides that the identification was mistaken. In the second paleontologist's publication, he/she will refer to the first paleontologist's record as a "subjective synonym" (subjective because it is the second paleontologist's //opinion//). | A different type of synonymy also exists where a paleontologist has miss-identified a specimen in their material, but published it anyway. Later, another paleontologist comes along and re-examines the first paleontologist's illustrations (or preferably the original material) and decides that the identification was mistaken but suggests what it //should// be called. In the second paleontologist's publication, he/she will refer to the first paleontologist's record as a "subjective synonym" (subjective because it is the second paleontologist's //opinion//). |
| |
