Scioly.org

jlordhe wrote:Can Rocks and Minerals help

Yeah, there are some sedimentary rocks on the Fossils list

How does one distinguish from Ammonoidea and Dactylioceras? Dactylioceras is an ammonite, so why does the list have both the subclass Ammonoidea and the genus Dactylioceras?

dxu46 wrote:How does one distinguish from Ammonoidea and Dactylioceras? Dactylioceras is an ammonite, so why does the list have both the subclass Ammonoidea and the genus Dactylioceras?

Generally you wouldn't really distinguish them, just note that you might be asked to identify any genus of ammonoid to the subclass level.

Unome wrote:

dxu46 wrote:How does one distinguish from Ammonoidea and Dactylioceras? Dactylioceras is an ammonite, so why does the list have both the subclass Ammonoidea and the genus Dactylioceras?

Generally you wouldn't really distinguish them, just note that you might be asked to identify any genus of ammonoid to the subclass level.

Then why is it on the list instead of as a category with specific genuses under it?

dxu46 wrote:

Unome wrote:

dxu46 wrote:How does one distinguish from Ammonoidea and Dactylioceras? Dactylioceras is an ammonite, so why does the list have both the subclass Ammonoidea and the genus Dactylioceras?

Generally you wouldn't really distinguish them, just note that you might be asked to identify any genus of ammonoid to the subclass level.

Then why is it on the list instead of as a category with specific genuses under it?

Probably just because it's numbered and to make it clear that you have to identify ammonoids to the subclass level.

UTF-8 U+6211 U+662F wrote:

dxu46 wrote:

Unome wrote: Generally you wouldn't really distinguish them, just note that you might be asked to identify any genus of ammonoid to the subclass level.

Then why is it on the list instead of as a category with specific genuses under it?

Probably just because it's numbered and to make it clear that you have to identify ammonoids to the subclass level.

Exactly. According to the new rule on taxonomy, if it wasn't in the list you should not be asked to identify the taxon.

Unome wrote:

UTF-8 U+6211 U+662F wrote:

dxu46 wrote: Then why is it on the list instead of as a category with specific genuses under it?

Probably just because it's numbered and to make it clear that you have to identify ammonoids to the subclass level.

Exactly. According to the new rule on taxonomy, if it wasn't in the list you should not be asked to identify the taxon.

But then why is Ammonoidea an identifiable class and not, say, Gastropoda?

dxu46 wrote:

Unome wrote:

UTF-8 U+6211 U+662F wrote: Probably just because it's numbered and to make it clear that you have to identify ammonoids to the subclass level.

Exactly. According to the new rule on taxonomy, if it wasn't in the list you should not be asked to identify the taxon.

But then why is Ammonoidea an identifiable class and not, say, Gastropoda?

By the almighty wisdom of the rules council

UTF-8 U+6211 U+662F wrote:

dxu46 wrote:

Unome wrote: Exactly. According to the new rule on taxonomy, if it wasn't in the list you should not be asked to identify the taxon.

But then why is Ammonoidea an identifiable class and not, say, Gastropoda?

By the almighty wisdom of the rules council

They are all identifiable classes. Reread 3.d.ii.

Unome wrote:

UTF-8 U+6211 U+662F wrote:

dxu46 wrote: But then why is Ammonoidea an identifiable class and not, say, Gastropoda?

By the almighty wisdom of the rules council

They are all identifiable classes. Reread 3.d.ii.

I disagree. It just says "taxonomic classification". I assume that means classifying identifiable specimens according to the taxonomy on the list.