tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post992819002315568788..comments2023-12-24T07:02:43.274+08:00Comments on Catalogue of Organisms: BoobiesChristopher Taylorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11075565866351612441noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-66905449489515687252009-01-31T08:24:00.000+08:002009-01-31T08:24:00.000+08:00I suppose there's no particular reason that I shou...I suppose there's no particular reason that I should post under my old (not quite paleozoic) blogger handle here when I use my real name on Tet Zoo, Palaeos.org, etc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-88196082781142190472009-01-30T19:02:00.000+08:002009-01-30T19:02:00.000+08:00I already did - I'm the Andreas Johansson who post...<I>I already did - I'm the Andreas Johansson who posted in that thread.</I><BR/><BR/>Whoops, my apologies.Christopher Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11075565866351612441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-3399566718870096822009-01-30T18:41:00.000+08:002009-01-30T18:41:00.000+08:00I already did - I'm the Andreas Johansson who post...I already did - I'm the Andreas Johansson who posted in that thread.<BR/><BR/>Regarding the Latin, the <I>-an|us, -a, -um</I> ending is typically adjectival. Now, one can't be absolutely sure, which is why I asked. :)Andreas Johanssonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08802392912541974977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-74047331636738032222009-01-29T18:23:00.000+08:002009-01-29T18:23:00.000+08:00I have Sula bassana on record, though it depends w...I have <I>Sula bassana</I> on record, though it depends whether "bassanus" is <A HREF="http://catalogue-of-organisms.blogspot.com/2008/07/gender-of-table.html" REL="nofollow">an adjective or a noun in apposition</A>.<BR/><BR/>If you read through the comment's on <A HREF="http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2008/12/gannets_are_awesome.php" REL="nofollow">Darren Naish's post on gannets</A>, you'll find a brief summary of the complicated (and more than a little confusing) history of how the name <I>Sula</I> came to be attached to the wrong bird.Christopher Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11075565866351612441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-3431035909484553532009-01-29T17:45:00.000+08:002009-01-29T17:45:00.000+08:00Oughtn't the combination be Sula bassana?For the e...Oughtn't the combination be <I>Sula bassana</I>?<BR/><BR/>For the entirely unscientific reason the bird is called "sula" in Swedish, I would prefer it in this genus.Andreas Johanssonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08802392912541974977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-48300432842575886212009-01-29T10:58:00.000+08:002009-01-29T10:58:00.000+08:00I love the boobies, organized conservation in Beli...I love the boobies, organized conservation in Belize <A HREF="http://eclecticechoes.com/2008/10/23/all-started-boobies/" REL="nofollow">all started with protecting the boobies</A>. <BR/><BR/>My son ran into an interesting learning moment at ITIS when he was identifying the birds. The Northern Gannet is currently listed as valid both as <I>Morus bassanus</I> and <I>Sula bassanus</I>.Eric Heupelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18327896268176961009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-63082282039167263672009-01-28T18:18:00.000+08:002009-01-28T18:18:00.000+08:00It suddenly occurs to me that I may have been maki...It suddenly occurs to me that I may have been making something of an invalid comparison in my last comment. Compared to the mammalian fossil record, the avian fossil record is more heavily skewed towards aquatic taxa. However, it was in the <I>terrestrial</I> environment that the Palaeogene-Neogene transition had the most effect. Therefore, I'm not sure whether the apparent lower faunal turnover for birds than mammals is reliable, or whether it is potentially a artifact of the fossil record as aquatic taxa might be expected to show less turnover about that time in the first place.Christopher Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11075565866351612441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-20673573994386071892009-01-28T15:06:00.000+08:002009-01-28T15:06:00.000+08:00While yes, Linnaean ranks are artificial, I don't ...While yes, Linnaean ranks are artificial, I don't think that it's entirely without interest to compare them across taxa if what you're interested in is comparing the differing biases of workers in different groups.<BR/><BR/>I actually get the opposite impression - that bird researchers tend to be <I>more</I> restrictive than mammal researchers as to what they call a "family" (I'm thinking of examples like Cercopithecidae and Bovidae here). Mind you, I don't think that the trend is necessarily constant even among different groups of mammals and birds - Passeriformes, for instance, seem to have a much more "divided" classification than non-passerine birds.<BR/><BR/>I do agree that Palaeogene birds seem more likely to be assigned to modern "families" than Palaeogene mammals, and I think that this does reflect some real events. First, mammals seem to have undergone a fairly significant amount of faunal turnover, with more Palaeogene lineages going extinct and being replaced by unrelated taxa (creodonts to carnivores, for instance). Birds, not so much, with the significant exception of the extinction of large chunks of the small bird assemblage known from Europe in the Eocene after the arrival of the Passeriformes.<BR/><BR/>The other possible reason is that birds have been more morphologically conservative through their Cenozoic history than mammals. The demands of flight being what they are, there's less scope for variation.Christopher Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11075565866351612441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-88913647948813722182009-01-28T13:14:00.000+08:002009-01-28T13:14:00.000+08:00I know about the artificiality of Linnean ranks. ...I know about the artificiality of Linnean ranks. Still, I don't get the impression that bird families seem to be much more inclusive than mammal families (in range of morphologies included), and -- utterly superficial, maybe just wrong, impression -- assignment of Eocene types to extant families seems for common with birds than with mammals. Is this totally off?Allen Hazenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05098575774774203097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-11239236552422452522009-01-28T05:56:00.000+08:002009-01-28T05:56:00.000+08:00Butterflies are a rich source of cross-code homony...Butterflies are a rich source of cross-code homonyms, because many butterfly genera have been given the names of classical goddesses and nymphs, and naturally those have also been popular names for flowering plants.<BR/><BR/>IIRC, the genus <I>Pieris</I> that Ted referred to includes the only example of a species name that refers to both an animal and a plant, <I>Pieris japonica</I>.Christopher Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11075565866351612441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-82069283447136467612009-01-28T02:43:00.000+08:002009-01-28T02:43:00.000+08:00There are hundreds of examples of cross-code homon...There are hundreds of examples of cross-code homonyms, e.g., <I>Gastonia</I> the ankylosaurian dinosaur genus and <I>Gastonia</I> the ivy genus.<BR/><BR/>The <I>PhyloCode</I>, which is intended to cover all organisms, has a recommendation (<A HREF="http://www.ohio.edu/phylocode/art10.html#rec10d" REL="nofollow">Rec. 10D</A>) for dealing with such homonyms. Basically, if those genera were converted to clades, then either the mulberry would be <I>Phyto-Morus</I> or the gannet would be <I>Zoo-Morus</I> (depending on which <I>Morus</I> was converted to a clade first).Mike Keeseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00147156174467903264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-9304562587483994942009-01-28T02:27:00.000+08:002009-01-28T02:27:00.000+08:00Some insect/plant generic homonyms that come to my...Some insect/plant generic homonyms that come to my mind are:<BR/>- <EM>Cotinis</EM> - green june beetle (Scarabaeidae) and smoke tree (Anacardiaceae).<BR/>- <EM>Pieris</EM> - cabbage butterfly (Pieridae) and Japanese andromeda (Ericaceae).<BR/>- <EM>Pavonia</EM> - emperor moth (Saturniidae) and swampmallow (Malvaceae).<BR/><BR/>I guess "boobies" is also a homonym!<BR/><BR/>regards--tedAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-69060185060478385812009-01-27T21:09:00.000+08:002009-01-27T21:09:00.000+08:00Thanks Christopher.I knew I would get a good answe...Thanks Christopher.<BR/>I knew I would get a good answer from you.<BR/>I was racking my brains for other examples, but could not think of any more (off the top of my head). I am sure there are lots - but I certainly am familiar with Morus (as both bird and plant). <BR/>I am familiar with Prunella as a plant, but not the insect.<BR/>Thanks<BR/>DenisDenis Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10031115992910569116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-37273524588095510552009-01-27T20:46:00.000+08:002009-01-27T20:46:00.000+08:00Denis - actually, the reason mulberries and gannet...Denis - actually, the reason mulberries and gannets are able to have the same names is because the fall under different nomenclature codes. The same name can refer to different organisms in the Botanical and Zoological codes, and there's quite a long list of such names (another birdy one is <I>Prunella</I>, which is both a genus of sparrow-like birds and one of herbs in the mint family). The only code which doesn't allow this is the Bacterial Code, which doesn't allow new names for bacteria that have already been used for animals or plants. There are still a few cases of identical names between other organisms and bacteria where the bacterium was named first - for instance, <I>Bacillus</I> is a rod-shaped bacterium and a stick insect.Christopher Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11075565866351612441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-25159189238168615612009-01-27T20:39:00.000+08:002009-01-27T20:39:00.000+08:00I'm sure you could drag more out of the subject th...I'm sure you could drag more out of the subject than I could. For a start, I barely touched the fossil sulids assigned to the recent genera. I really wanted to work in a mention of <I>Sula guano</I>, just because I love the name, but the post was long enough as it was.<BR/><BR/>So <I>Elopteryx</I> may yet be a bird? Nevertheless, I'm guessing that it isn't going to be worming its way back into the crown group any time soon.Christopher Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11075565866351612441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-76994621594992423542009-01-27T20:37:00.000+08:002009-01-27T20:37:00.000+08:00Hi ChristopherI cannot resist pointing out the dup...Hi Christopher<BR/>I cannot resist pointing out the duplication of generic names here: Morus being a Gannet - in birds; but a Mulberry, when dealing with plants.<BR/>I believe the new rules of nomenclature would prevent this happening these days, but old names are still "valid".<BR/>Cheers<BR/>DenisDenis Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10031115992910569116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-69901978772655344462009-01-27T20:28:00.000+08:002009-01-27T20:28:00.000+08:00Oh well, there goes the planned third part of my s...Oh well, there goes the planned third part of my sulid series. Never mind. I dunno, I may still cover them, as there are a few additional interesting things to add.<BR/><BR/><I>Elopteryx</I>: Gareth Dyke and I had a go at identifying the type material in 2004. It might be from a troodontid, but the possibility does exist that it was a large non-ornithuromorphan pygostylian.Darren Naishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00324870234525004643noreply@blogger.com