[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: -oidea in Genus Names
George Olshevsky (Dinogeorge@aol.com) wrote:
<Right. So what's the problem? You can still create generic names that end
in -oidea, -idae, and so on.>
Err, your statement that any genus name with -oidea should be changed
because that's a mandated suffix for superfamilies.
where you change the suffix to -oidia. Usually, they make it -oides, but
this does not invalidate -oidea as a stem in any sense.
<Warning: This one is strictly for nomenclature nuts like me. It inspires
me to add a history of nonavian dinosaur family-level names to The
Dinosaur Catalogue somewhere, maybe the intro.>
I recall the paper, reading just the online errata makes it clear to me
that the thing was quite, quite long in the making and that some
reasonings were very sound. I do note than many, note I have not read the
whole thing myself, names may have had some twisted histories, but that's
what step-by-step untangling does. I think the first thing to do when
something looks synonymous is ignore priority of names and just conduct a
systematic analysis. You can propose changes thenceforth. If there is no
valid family, then there is no need to change or emend it. If the genus is
not valid (not that I think genera are real, in the same vein as I do
families) no need to emend that, either.
Eh, I love taxonomy just as much as you do.
Jaime A. Headden
Little steps are often the hardest to take. We are too used to making leaps
in the face of adversity, that a simple skip is so hard to do. We should all
learn to walk soft, walk small, see the world around us rather than zoom by it.
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More