[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Segnosauria vs. Therizinosauria
Tom Holtz wrote:
Technically, the superfamily is part of the "family group", and thus not a
Yep, thought you meant "family level".
Obviously someone not familiar with the mantra "Burn the Code"... :-)
Hey, hand me the kero. I'm weary of families (and superfamilies) in which
the name-bearing genus is based on crappy material. So, if _Spondylosoma_
is shown to be a valid genus and to belong to Staurikosauridae, we have to
rename the family Spondylosomatidae because this family was named decades
before Staurikosauridae. Gimme a break! If _Troodon_ is shown to be an
invalid genus (for the same reason that _Deinodon_ and _Trachodon_ are
_nomina dubia_) then we have to go back to calling this family
Saurornithoididae. Why couldn't we have stuck with Barsbold's
Saurornithoididae, which has a more stable genus as its name-bearer?
Because the ICZN said we couldn't, that's why.
Also, be warned: the "-oidea" is *NOT* always used with the superfamily
True. To avoid this kind of confusion I think is the reason why
entomologists used the suffix "-odea" rather than "-oidea" for certain
"order"-level taxa (e.g. Grylloblattodea, Mantodea)
[Incidentally, I hope this goes some way towards dismissing any notion that
taxonomy was all neat and tidy prior to phylogenetic taxonomy!]
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com