[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Jaime just couldn't resist.... he wrote-
> And Mickey omits that while Naish and Martill published the name,
> application and use of the name is not so clear, and not useable even if
> it was used in a caption.
Omitted because the second part of your sentence is your OPINION, while I
was merely listing the facts. There is no set of rules in effect anywhere
dictating which supra-family level taxon names are "useable".
> Out of respect to
> Darren and Dave Martill, as well as much respect one finds a nomen nudum
> elsewhere, don't use it.
Naish stated "Given the proposed moratorium on new theropod clade names
(Padian et al. 1999) this is ok, and Naish et al.'s use of Enigmosauria
should be ignored." So unless you're going to ignore the other new theropod
clade names proposed since 1999 (Avepoda, Averostra, Carnotaurini,
Albertosaurinae, Avifilolpluma, Avepectora, Caudipteridae, Microraptoria,
Scansoriopterygidae, Omnivoropterygidae, Euenantiornithes, Ornithuromorpha,
etc.), you'd be hypocritical to ignore Enigmosauria. Indeed, I find Padian
et al.'s moratorium to be hypocritical itself, as the authors named
Eumaniraptora in the same paper. It's okay for them to name a clade they
find useful, but not for others to do such?
And Enigmosauria cannot be a nomen nudum, since it's not governed by the
ICZN. Nor does it have any less status than, say, Maniraptora, since the
latter is also not governed by the ICZN or any other accepted body of work.
You people have to stop being so anal about names that aren't governed by
any code. If you want to pretend Phylocode is in effect now, and judge taxa
based on it, you better reject Maniraptora too. Because the Phylocode
states definitions need species or specimens (or apomorphies) as the
specifiers (Article 11.1), and so far Maniraptora has only been defined with
genera (e.g. Passer <- Ornithomimus). Same thing for nearly every other
clade name we all use so constantly. Exceptions would be in the works of
Gauthier and de Queiroz (2001) and Clarke (2004).
So if you don't like to use names published accidentally, or those only
published in figures, or those without explicit definitions, don't use
Enigmosauria. It's your choice. But stop claiming it's "unofficial",
"invalid", "unuseable", "a nomen nudum" or any other such classification
(unless you only recognize 10 or so theropod clades as being official,
valid, etc., in which case I have no qualms).
Undergraduate, Earth and Space Sciences
University of Washington
The Theropod Database - http://students.washington.edu/eoraptor/Home.html