[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Pterosaur origins
Chris Taylor 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).
Tyrannosauroidea currently has at least one phylogenetic definition. By
contrast, Coeluroidea has none (AFAIK). So under the principle of "first
in, best dressed", Tyrannosauroidea would win out. Even though, as you say,
under ICZN rules Tyrannosauroidea should be a junior synonym of Coeluroidea.
If one wants to retain Coeluroidea and Tyrannosauroidea as separate and
mutually exclusive taxa ("superfamilies"), then this could be achieved by
using the nominative genus of the *other* superfamily as an external
specifier. A new clade (e.g., Tyrannosauria) could be erected, and defined
to be a more inclusive taxon - such as _Tyrannosaurus_ but not _Passer_
(stem-based). The name Coeluria is available, of course - but it's
traditionally (and fairly recently - Paul ) been used for something
Personally, I'd probably be cautious of sinking Tyrannosauroidea into
Coeluroidea unless the support for uniting them was very strong.
Like the way Microsoft Office Outlook works? You?ll love Windows Live