[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Quo vadis... (REALLY my last)
Dinogeorge wrote (02/05/96; 5:09p):
>Once you get into superfamilies, you're under the jurisdiction of the
>The names Maniraptora and Arctometatarsalia are improper family-level
>which must ultimately be based on generic names. In the case of
>superfamilies, the names are formed from the generic-name root plus the
>suffix -oidea, and if there are already families within the superfamily,
>then the oldest family name tells you which genus you must use to form
>superfamily name. Thus, instead of Maniraptora, the name must be
>Dromaeosauroidea, because Dromaeosauridae is the oldest included
>family-level name (Matthew & Brown, 1922, versus Oviraptoridae Barsbold,
>1976 and Ornitholestidae from Ornitholestinae Paul, 1988). And
>Arctometatarsalia would have to become Ornithomimoidea, from
Ornithomimidae >Marsh, 1890, which beats the other three families by a
>Note that keeping Maniraptora and Arctometatarsalia above the family
>would retain them unchanged.
RULES? RULES? I don't need no stinking rules!
There seems to be a conflict here between wanting to keep up with current
thinking, while still keeping a framework that can be presented
(productively) to non-scientists. It will be reaching to use terms like
Arctometatarsalia, and I'm supposed to honor ICZN rules? I'm just hoping
they will understand: 1, that there is a difference between the animals
in Maniraptora and Arctometatarsalia; 2, what the difference is; and 3,
why they should care.
Maybe I should make up my own suprafamilial categories. How about:
Hyperfamily? Macrofamily? Masterfamily? Honchofamily?
Or maybe these could be nano-orders?
Norman R. King tel: (812) 464-1794
Department of Geosciences fax: (812) 464-1960
University of Southern Indiana
8600 University Blvd.
Evansville, IN 47712 e-mail: email@example.com