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

RE: Suchosaurus, Baryonyx and Martinavis

Mike Taylor wrote:

> Why? I don't see that at all. I think they are much more
> complementary than competitive. I also don't see any problem in the
> possibility of Megalosauroidea (or whatever it was) being a valid
> clade under the PhyloCode but not a valid superfamily under the ICZN
> -- not so long as we're clear which sense we use the name in. After
> all, we already have a very same situation with names that are valid
> under both codes, e.g. Cetiosauridae which is traditionally a
> paraphyletic family under the ICZN but (of course) a clade in PN.
> Sometimes it seems as though people are deliberately looking for
> points of conflict between the codes.

I agree with Mike Keesey here.  We need to identify any and all sources of 
trouble and head them off at the pass.  These esoteric (and painful) ICZN v 
PhyloCode dicsussions might actually serve a purpose.   

I don't know about "Cetiosauridae which is traditionally a paraphyletic family 
under the ICZN but (of course) a clade in PN."  The practice of having 
paraphyletic groups did not really happen "under the ICZN"; it just happened 
because taxonomists allowed it to happen.  This wasn't (and still isn't) the 
ICZN's forte.  The ICZN only cares that the family Cetiosauridae is typified by 
_Cetiosaurus_, and that (as a family) its relative 'rank' is maintained (e.g., 
if a subfamily Cetiosaurinae and superfamily Cetiosauroidea were erected, that 
Cetiosauridae is slotted between the two).

I agree with the Megalosauroidea example though.  But I still maintain that 
-oidea clades are probably best avoided, because of their Linnaean hierarchial 

Mike Keesey wrote:

> But in some instances the ICZN just says "valid", without specifying
> whether it means "nomenclaturally valid", "taxonomically valid", or
> both.

Yes, confusing isn't it.  Many ICZN rules only tell us enough information to be 

> Well, if you define _Ceratopsidae_ as Clade(_Ceratops montanus_ +
> _Chasmosaurus belli_ + _Centrosaurus apertus_), you can be *extremely*
> confident that _C. montanus_ belongs. :)

That'd work!  Let's hope the new _Ceratops montanus_ material that I keep on 
hearing about helps clarify its position.



Climb to the top of the charts!  Play Star Shuffle:  the word scramble 
challenge with star power.