[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

RE: Nomenclatural question



Christopher Taylor wrote:

While off the top of
my head I can't think of any occasion where a taxon ending '-formes' has
been more inclusive than a corresponding taxon ending '-morpha', I don't
really see any reason why this couldn't happen.

I can think of one example: Gliriformes and Glirimorpha. Wouldn't you know it, it's those pesky mammals again. Gliriformes is the stem group for Glires, and includes rodents, lagomorphs and a bunch of extinct taxa (including, according to a soon-to-be-published paper, the arctostylopids). Gliriformes is therefore more inclusive than Glirimorpha, a subgroup of rodents that includes dormice. To be fair, Gliriformes was named with reference to Glires (named by Linnaeus, and later co-opted as the rodent+lagomorph "superorder"), whereas Glirimorpha was named with reference to the dormouse genus _Glis_, family Gliridae.


Gliriformes was proposed by Wyss and Meng (1996) - the same pair who came up with the truly awful moniker Lagomorphamorpha. Blecchhh!

Cheers

Tim