[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Correction/update #3 - Mesozoic dinosaur species)
Mike Taylor wrote:
I admit that when I first saw the word "rebbachisauroid" in the
abstract I was a bit puzzled as to what that taxon might refer to. It
would be great to know what Sebastian's motivation was -- IIRC, he
does read this list so maybe he'll chip in.
I get the distinct impression that the new name "Rebbachisauroidea" was
intended to highlight the diverse and speciose nature of the rebbachisaurs.
From that perspective, a new name is unnecessary, since PN is blind to the
Linnaean practice of using ranks to denote (or connote) the perceived
relative success of groups. Rebbachisauridae was more than sufficient for
Having seen the
definition I admit I am at a loss to see what it would bring to the
party, even were it not for the problem of its being a subset of the
coordinated family-level taxon.
To give a contrary example, you can see why the authors who named and
described _Turiasaurus_ avoided coining a family-level taxon for it and its
nearest relatives. Instead, they opted for "Turiasauria", which sidesteps
any and all entanglements with the ICZN. Similarly, with the problems
surrounding the name Titanosauridae, Wilson and Upchurch (2003) chose to
erect a clade called Lithostrotia rather than a new family-level taxon.
Rebbachisauroidea, on the other hand, is seriously looking for trouble.
Learn.Laugh.Share. Reallivemoms is right place!