[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: SVP Preview
--- Dinogeorge@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 9/27/02 10:14:46 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
> << This is if you are going by ICZN rules, and consider these taxa to be
> superfamilies. I you consider them rankless clades, then _Spinosauroidea_
> phylogenetic definition, and Megalosauroidea, does not, making it
> for comparison. >>
> Afaik, ICZN does not recognize phylogenetic definitions, but it does govern
> family level taxa. The ending -oidea is standard for superfamilies, making
> Megalosauroidea and Spinosauroidea both family level taxa subject to ICZN
> rules of synonymy.
Yes -- like I said, IF you're going by ICZN rules.
> Even if the clades are rankless, the name Megalosauroidea
> has priority over Spinosauroidea, so that when Spinosauroidea was
> phylogenetically defined, it was really Megalosauroidea that was being given
> the definition.
No -- they are unranked, so there is no ground for saying they are the same.
They are simply two names. They may only be synonymized under PT if they have
both been phylogenetically defined.
Incidentally, "-oidea" is not unique to superfamilies. There are orders
(Hyracoidea), infraorders (Anthropoidea) and subclasses (Echinoidea,
Asteroidea, Crinoidea, etc.) which use the suffix as well, and maybe other
ranks as well. AFAIK, when Sereno defined _Spinosauroidea_ he did not specify
that it was of a specific rank. Therefore, there would be no grounds for saying
it is the same as Megalosauroidea, a superfamily name with no precise
=====> T. Michael Keesey <email@example.com>
=====> The Dinosauricon <http://dinosauricon.com>
=====> BloodySteak <http://bloodysteak.com>
=====> Instant Messenger <Ric Blayze>
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!