[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Podokesauridae, Problems of Nomenclature Returned
On Sat, 19 Jan 2002, Jaime A. Headden wrote:
> <Ah, but _Coelophysidae_ was *defined* first. (Podokesauridae has never
> been explicityly defined, TMK.)>
> It doesn't matter. 1) if Podokesauridae is valid, Coelophysidae is sunk,
> in accordance with the ICZN. I believe the Phylocode provision is to move
> the definition to the valid taxon to which it applies; 2) The definition
> is not a valid reason to retain a taxon in priority, as any rule of
> definition application has been established. This may be the desire, but
> until I see it applied effectively, I will follow the ICZN.
I am not following the ICZN in this matter. In my classification
philosophy, and that of others, there is no such thing as a "family-level"
taxon. There are only clades an species. _Coelophysidae_ has been defined
as a clade. Podokesauridae has not.
> Phylogenetic taxonomy says nothing on the application of names and
> definitions and the priority of a definition making an un-defined taxon
> defunct by it's lack.
PhyloCode does. Not that it's in effect yet, but it does state that a
definition must be provided for a taxon to be considered.
> I see defining taxa as a supremely advantageous step, but I also would
> like to consider it optional to the person who names the taxon.
If it is undefined, how can you be sure how to use it?
> Issues of synonymy are very important, and they should be clearly
> worked out before anyone decides a taxon is not valid in one
> fifteen-word (or less) paragraph.
You can't really synonymize undefined taxa because they are not explicit.
T. MICHAEL KEESEY
The Dinosauricon <http://dinosauricon.com>
personal <firstname.lastname@example.org> --> <email@example.com>
AOL Instant Messenger <Ric Blayze>
Yahoo! Messenger <Mighty Odinn>