[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Jaime Headden wrote:
Using Chris' helpful link, I also found that Rafinesque named a
a nomen nudum in 1815, before Marsh's name *Ceratops montanus*. But of
nomina nuda do not compete for priority. Lull apparently recognized this
renamed it *Proceratops montanus*, but this is also a nomen nudum?
I didn't understand this either. Lull would have renamed _Ceratops_ Marsh
1888 because he believed (incorrectly, as it turns out) that _Ceratops_
Rafinesque 1815 was a valid genus. _Ceratops montanus_ is nomenclaturally
valid, so _Proceratops_ Lull 1906 (proposed as a replacement name for
_Ceratops_ Marsh 1888) should be valid too.
Something else that's weird... There is no mention of _Cryptosaurus_ Seeley
1869. This dinosaur genus was re-named _Cryptodraco_ by Lydekker twenty
years later, under the belief that the original name was preoccupied.
_Cryptosaurus_ is given in Nomenclator Zoologicus as a valid genus:
_Cryptosaurus_ [Anonymous] 1833. But I was under the impression that the
latter name was (a) named by Geoffrey; and (b) was a misspelling of
_Cystosaurus_ Geoffroy 1833. So, _Cryptosaurus_ Seeley should be OK.
Christopher Taylor wrote:
to scroll down - the same issue includes two truly dire proposals for
extending the ICZN to cover suprafamilial taxa. The first of these would
even require typified names at all ranks with standardised endings. As
an arachnologist myself, I'm still reeling with horror from seeing
Ricinulei renamed 'Poliocheriformes', Palpigradi as 'Eukoeneniiformes'
and Cheliceromorpha as 'Scorpionozoi'.
Double eep! Sounds like a perfectly horrid idea. It's bad enough that
co-ordinated family-level taxa have ICZN strings attached... but everything!
I would have gone the other way, and limit the scope of the ICZN to just
genera and species (and subspecies).
This system would probably make Vertebrata into 'Hominozoi'... eep!
I shudder to think what Metazoa would be called. Or Eukaryota. :-O