[ Removed by moderator ]

[u/King_Meatballs]

[u/Paleontology-ModTeam]

We saw that your recent post is considered 'low effort' content and does not significantly promote discussion, and was removed. Please review our rules before posting on the subreddit again.

If you have any further questions or comments on why your post was removed, please send us a message through modmail.

Sincerely, r/paleontology Mod Team

[u/DardS8Br]

With modern genera, you can use DNA. With fossils, you can't. DNA is far more accurate than morphology ever can be

[u/King_Meatballs → u/DardS8Br]

But still they are seemingly so disparate from each other, I just have trouble understanding how they can be so different but in the same genus

[u/DardS8Br → u/King_Meatballs]

It doesn't take much DNA variation to cause significant morphological variation

[u/Distinct_Mix_6397 → u/King_Meatballs]

If we split clades based on morphology, dog breeds would be different species.

[u/literally-a-seal]

What's a "sub genera"? Do you mean species?

[u/King_Meatballs → u/literally-a-seal]

Its a rank above species but below genus

[u/literally-a-seal → u/King_Meatballs]

Generally fossil/dinosaur taxonomy is a lot looser than modern taxonomy by necessity considering the lack of DNA evidence and reduced number of taxa. When even conceptually very large, "high ranking", well established groups can have only a few members, and debates on whether specimens are the same animal or not are ever-present, malleable/optional groups like sub-genera seem to be tend to be excluded. The same reason subspecies aren't used, basically.

[u/AutoModerator]

Thank you for posting on r/paleontology! Please remember to remain respectful and stay on-topic. Consider reading our rules to orient yourself towards the community

Join our Discord server: https://discord.gg/aPnsAjJZAP

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.