[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
suprafamilial taxon!

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.


(Deep breaths)

Also, be warned: the "-oidea" is *NOT* always used with the superfamily
group.

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!]

God forbid!


Tim ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com