[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Pterosaur origins
On 5/17/07, firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com> wrote:
Under the ICZN rules, Coeluroidea would have priority over
Tyrannosauroidea if one chose to recognise a superfamily uniting
_Tyrannosaurus_ and _Coelurus_, yes. Of course, no-one is under any
obligation to do so - you could just as easily recognise two
superfamilies Coeluroidea and Tyrannosauroidea that happen to be
sister taxa (though in this case, Coeluroidea would currently be
redundant with Coeluridae). Personally, I'd probably be cautious of
sinking Tyrannosauroidea into Coeluroidea unless the support for
uniting them was very strong.
An excellent case of how, contrary to the perception of some,
phylogenetic nomenclature is more stable than traditional taxonomy.
Under phylogenetic nomenclature, _Tyrannosauroidea_ is defined
while Coeluroidea has never been defined. Under ICZN rules, a basal
taxon like _Coelurus_ shifting in and out of the hypothesized clade
changes the taxon's name--under PN, there is no change.
(Incidentally, these name changes due to coordinated ranks were not an
original feature of Linnaean taxonomy.)