[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Suchosaurus, Baryonyx and Martinavis
Mike Keesey wrote:
> Well, _Suchosaurus_ is a pretty good name in terms of etymology, at least.
I had _Gigantspinosaurus_ in mind when I wrote that comment. Wouldn't mind
putting the kay-bosh on that one. :-) No, I like _Suchosaurus_, but
_Baryonyx_ is much cooler.
> I don't see any problem with continuing to use _Baryonyx_,
> _Troodontidae_, and _Stenonychosaurus_, myself.
I regard any clade based on a nomen dubium (or potential nomen dubium) to be
problematic (or ptentially problematic). This would be the case for
Troodontidae if _Troodon_ becomes a nomen dubium. In that event,
Saurornithoididae is available - although it's currently without a definition.
> has a different situation, though, as there is no newer name with
> better type material -- it does seem like a good candidate for a
> Incidentally, this raises an interesting code-related issue. It seems
> that, whatever the status of _Suchosaurus_, Suchosauridae is still the
> valid name for the corresponding family (which presumably would
> include _Baryonyx_ and _Spinosaurus_) under the ICZN.
Unless _Suchosaurus_ is a nomen dubium. Otherwise, you're dead-on. After all,
the Spinosauridae+Torvosauridae clade was originally named Torvosauroidea, but
was renamed Spinosauroidea because Spinosauridae was named before
Torvosauridae. This was 'required' by ICZN rules.
> _Spinosauridae_ has been given a phylogenetic definition. Of course,
> the PhyloCode is not in effect yet, but suppose it were in effect and
> _Spinosauridae_ were registered (e.g., with the definition
> "Clade(_Baryonyx_ + _Spinosaurus_)") as a clade name. We'd have a
> situation where Family Spinosauridae would be invalid under the ICZN,
> but Clade _Spinosauridae_ would be valid under the PhyloCode.
At some stage the ICZN and PhyloCode will have to duke it out. Pistols at ten
paces, I say.
Frankly, I think the best policy would be for ICZN to be restricted to genera
and species, and be shorn of any responsibility for coordinated family-level
taxa. In the above example, Torvosauroidea was trumped by Spinosauroidea
because of ICZN rules; but Torvosauria would have been fine, because as a
non-coordinated-family-level taxon it doesn't come up on the ICZN's radar.
Climb to the top of the charts! Play Star Shuffle: the word scramble
challenge with star power.