[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Inglourious New Papers
Mike Keesey <email@example.com> wrote:
> Maybe it's a member of Clade _Sinraptoridae_ as well as a
> member of
> Family Metriacanthosauridae (=Family Sinraptoridae).
Having *both* Sinraptoridae and Metriacanthosauridae, with one inside the
other, is also against ICZN rules. Because they both end in -idae, they would
both be treated as families by the ICZN.
Also, having both Sinraptoridae and Metriacanthosauridae, with one inside the
other, strikes me as, well... weird.
This takes us back to Mickey's original point: with PhyloCode not yet
officially implemented, should we obey ICZN rules regarding family-level taxa?
I say not. IMHO, PhyloCode or no PhyloCode, there's no point having a family
Metriacanthosauridae unless it has been phylogenetically defined.
> In general, I'm in favor of considering the alternatives
> phylogenetically defining a name with a rank-associated
> because of situations like these.
I definitely take your point. ICZN and PhyloCode each have their own rules,
and at the moment we're trying to jump through both sets of hoops. It just
I'm in favor of abandoning all rank-associated suffixes, and replacing
'families' like Sinraptoridae with non-ranked taxa, such as Sinraptorida or
Sinraptoria. I know this is a radical idea, but it means that clades can
expand or contract without stepping on the toes of the ICZN (such as having one
family inside another, which is an ICZN no-no). This trend has already
started, with recent clades such as Turiasauria and Elasmaria erected to
receive a very small number of taxa. In times past these would have been
family-level taxa (like Turiasauridae or Macrogryphosauridae), but these days
many authors shy away from erecting taxa ending in -idae. You can see why.