...
首页> 外文期刊>South African Journal of Science >Alpha and sigma taxonomy of Lystrosaurus murrayi and L. declivis, Triassic dicynodonts (Therapsida) from the Karoo Basin, South Africa
【24h】

Alpha and sigma taxonomy of Lystrosaurus murrayi and L. declivis, Triassic dicynodonts (Therapsida) from the Karoo Basin, South Africa

机译:来自南非卡鲁盆地的三叠纪犬齿龙(Therapsida)的Lystrosaurus murrayi和L. declivis的alpha和sigma分类法

获取原文

摘要

Permo-Triassic dicynodont (Therapsid) fossils attributed to the genus Lystrosaurus 1 are known from the South African Karoo Basin, including two Triassic taxa referred to as L. (Dicynodon) murrayi 2 and L. (Ptychognathus) declivis 3 . Distinction of the two taxa has been recognised inter alia by Brink 4 , Cluver and King 5 , Botha and Smith 6 , Grine et al. 7 and Botha-Brink et al. 8 However, in this instance, the appropriateness of alpha taxonomy may be questioned, recognising that boundaries between these species of Lystrosaurus are not necessarily clear, especially for specimens close to the time of divergence postdating the Permo-Triassic boundary, 252 million years ago. The question has arisen as to whether only one species occurred. 9 Thackeray 10 proposed the following hypotheses:? H T – that one species existed and? H BB – that there were two taxa, clearly distinct at the species level.Both hypotheses need to be considered in the light of a statement by Camp 11 : ‘traditional data were unable to distinguish between L. murrayi and L. declivis without overlapping measurements in regions where the geometric morphometric analyses indicated they differed most’. Irrespective of which statistical methods are used for taxonomic purposes, it is essential to have some kind of definition of a species that can be applied in palaeontological contexts, to address opposing views held by ‘alpha taxonomists’ who assume clear boundaries between species 12 , and ‘sigma taxonomists’ 13-15 who do not.
机译:从南非Karoo盆地已知属于Lystrosaurus 1属的Permo-Triassic dicynodont(Therapsid)化石,包括两个三叠纪分类群L.(Dicynodon)murrayi 2和L.(Ptychognathus)declivis 3。尤其是Brink 4,Cluver和King 5,Botha和Smith 6,Grine等人已经认识到了两个分类单元的区别。 7和Botha-Brink等。 8然而,在这种情况下,阿尔法分类法的适用性可能会受到质疑,因为人们认识到这些脉龙属之间的界限不一定明确,尤其是对于距今2.52亿年前的二叠纪-三叠纪界线之后接近发散的标本。是否只有一种物种出现了问题。 9 Thackeray 10提出了以下假设: H T –那一个物种存在吗? H BB –有两个分类单元,在物种水平上明显不同。需要根据营地11的陈述考虑这两个假设:'传统数据无法在没有重叠测量的情况下区分墨累L. murrayi和斜生L. declivis在几何形态分析表明它们差异最大的区域中。无论将哪种统计方法用于分类目的,都必须对可以在古生物学背景下应用的物种进行某种定义,以解决“α分类学家”所持的相反观点,后者假定物种12之间存在明确的界限,并且“ sigma分类学家” 13-15人没有。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号