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

Re: Inglourious New Papers

On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 7:39 PM, Tim Williams<tijawi@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Michael Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com> wrote:
>> Metriacanthosaurus cannot be a sinraptorid according to the
>> ICZN, as Metriacanthosauridae (1988) was named before
>> Sinraptoridae (1993/1994). ÂI'm sure the reply is that
>> "Sinraptoridae is phylogenetically defined",
> Dead right. ÂSinraptoridae IS phylogenetically defined - which is the very 
> reason why _Metriacanthosaurus_ belongs in this clade. ÂThat should count for 
> something.
> The name Sinraptoridae was originally erected (1993) to include two Âclosely 
> related genera: _Sinraptor_ and _Yangchuanosaurus_. ÂSinraptoridae was 
> subsequently (1997) defined as a stem-based clade (_Sinraptor_ but not 
> _Allosaurus_; later emendations added other external specifiers). ÂRecent 
> phylogenetic analyses have recovered _Lourinhanosaurus_ and 
> _Metriacanthosaurus_ as falling inside this clade. Â_Metriacanthosaurus_ is 
> based on fragmentary material, whereas_Sinraptor_ is based on an excellent 
> skeleton; so I can't see any good reason to replace Sinraptoridae with 
> Metriacanthosauridae.

Maybe it's a member of Clade _Sinraptoridae_ as well as a member of
Family Metriacanthosauridae (=Family Sinraptoridae).

In general, I'm in favor of considering the alternatives before
phylogenetically defining a name with a rank-associated suffix,
because of situations like these.
T. Michael Keesey
Technical Consultant and Developer, Internet Technologies
Glendale, California