[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Status of _Caudipteryx_



Quoting Dinogeorge@aol.com:

> Caudipterygidae is etymologically correct, but under current rules 
> Caudipteridae has to stick; see article 29.4 of the 4th edition of the
> ICZN. 
> As I recall, the family name was created in 2000 (that is, after 1999).
> 

Unfortunately yes. In my opinion, the ICZN has gotten rather slack of late. I 
know the reason why proper etymology was dropped from the family requirements, 
but I don't find it a convincing reason to allow such constructions as 
Caudipteridae. The problem was in cases like the Synodontidae in which the 
family was first erected for a genus like Synodus (the lizardfish), but there 
exists a different genus Synodon (a catfish)which is also the name-bearing 
genus of a family, which in this case was forced to be the etymologically-
incorrect Synodidae (which, if anything, would be preferable for Synodus, if we 
sort of look the other way regarding its original construction and choose to 
gaze only on the "us" ending :-). I'm not sure if this situation required an 
ICZN ruling at some point, but it is likely that it did. By allowing any 
variant on the generic root for the family, you can have a Synodontidae, a 
Synodidae, a Synodusidae, a Synodontididae, a Synodirthidifidae or any manner 
of names to accomodate genera with the same roots but slightly different 
suffixes. HOWEVER, this situation occurs so rarely (relatively speaking) that I 
feel the need for petitioning the ICZN from time to time is far more preferable 
to being stuck with such monstrosities as "Yangdangithidae" for _Yandangornis_ 
(which thank goodness was published pre-2000!). Oh well, taxonomy rant over. 

Oh, and to address whoever inquired about the existence of a "teen dino-list", 
I think you'd be surprised how many of us on the current list fit that bill.

Sincerely,
Christian Kammerer