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

Re: Ceratonykus oculatus

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Tim Williams <tijawi@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Anyone know why it was named "Ceratonykus"?

Presumably because of the odd spikes projecting from its wrist. (Which
look to my untrained eye kind of like fused carpals or something ...
which might have implications for frame shift. But I could be wrong.)

> According to the ICZN, yes, Parvicursoridae has priority over 
> Mononychidae/Mononykidae.

(Actually, Mononychidae, the weevil family, should have priority
[although I think it's generally synonymized with Curculionidae]. Of
course, that's pretty irrelevant considering that nobody would ever
try to synonymize it with these dinosaurian families.)

> But under PhyloCode, whichever clade is defined first (Parvicursoridae or 
> Mononykidae) would get the gig.  Neither has been defined, AFAIK, although 
> Mononykinae has a phylogenetic definition.

In the interest of agreement between the codes, It would be better to
convert "Parvicursorinae" as a PhyloCode clade and leave "Mononykinae"
alone. Or, perhaps better yet, come up with a new name without a
rank-associated suffix, like "Mononyki" or "Mononykia" or whatever.

T. Michael Keesey
Technical Consultant and Developer, Internet Technologies
Glendale, California