[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: New name for Megalosaurus hesperis
David Marjanovic <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Not at all. There are genera like *Emydoidea* and
> *Caimanoidea* (with the feminine counterpart to the
> masculine -oides).
As genera, _Emydoidea_ and _Caimanoidea_ are not coordinate family-level taxa.
> There are cases like Superfamily
> Ursoidea, derived from Ursidae and *Ursus*, being contained
> within Infraorder Arctoidea, derived from no family name
Yes, exactly. Arctoidea and Ursoidea represent totally different cases, owing
to the way these names were established. The fact that Arctoidea is "derived
from no family name whatsoever" means that the ICZN's Principle of Coordination
does not apply, and the taxon Arctoidea is exempt from Article 36 of the Code.
By contrast, Ursoidea and Ursidae are coordinate taxa, and both have _Ursus_ as
their type genus. Thus, the ICZN can get its claws into Ursidae/Ursoidea, but
> Same for Hominoidea and Anthropoidea (the latter
> including all monkeys). And that's just off the top of
> my head.
Again, this is just like the Arctoidea/Ursoidea example: Hominoidea is
coordinate with Hominidae (and both are established upon genus _Homo_), but
Anthropoidea was not established w.r.t any nominal taxon. As a result,
Hominoidea/idae/inae/in falls within the scope of the Code, but Anthropoidea
What does all this have to do with Megalosauroidea? I'm glad you asked.
Megalosauroidea and Megalosauridae are coordinate taxa, and both were
established upon _Megalosaurus_. Thus, the ICZN gets to call the shots w.r.t
nomenclatural matters. It's not so much the -oidea or -idae suffixes that puts
these names under the ICZN, but how these taxon names came about.