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

RE: VERY Stupid question, but I dont know the answer...



T. Mike Keesey wrote:

>There are, however, cases where seniority seems to be ignored
>(Deinodontidae vs. Tyrannosauridae).
and 
>Actually, since _Deinodon_ was placed in a 
>new family, Deinodontidae, that's probably the correct name by ICZN >rules,
but I never see anyone use it.

_Deinodon horridus_ Leidy 1856 is based on indeterminate teeth, and so is a
_nomen dubium_.  Hence, the family Deinodontidae is "fruit of the poisonous
tree", and cannot be considered a valid name either.  Tyrannosauridae Osborn
1905 is therefore the first available name for the family containing
_Tyrannosaurus_ and its close relatives. 

Having said this, Ceratopsidae and Hadrosauridae should probably be
considered invalid family names, since the name-giving taxa are probably
_nomina dubia_ - and perhaps Troodontidae and Titanosauridae as well, for
the same reason.  Hopefully PhyloCode will sort all this out.


Tim




------------------------------------------------------------ 

Timothy J. Williams 

USDA-ARS Researcher 
Agronomy Hall 
Iowa State University 
Ames IA 50014 

Phone: 515 294 9233 
Fax:   515 294 3163