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

RE: Kileskus and Proceratosauridae

Jaime Headden wrote-

> A.O. Averianov, S.A. Krasnolutskii and S.V. Ivantsov. 2010. A new basal 
> coelurosaur (Dinosauria: Theropoda) from the Middle Jurassic of Siberia. 
> _Proceedings of the Zoological Institute_ 314(1):42-57.
> Names *Kileskus aristotocus*, and argues a peculiarity: The name 
> Proceratosauridae Rauhut et al. 2010 does not satisfy ICZN Art 13.1.1, in 
> that a differential diagnosis was not provided. They thus argue that the name 
> Proceratosauridae is a nomen nudum, which they seek to correct by providing 
> one, under the heading Proceratosauridae fam. nov. In addition, the authors 
> argue that when establishing this taxon, it is provided as a monophyletic 
> clade, which Averianov et al claim as a tautology, as every clade is 
> apparently monophyletic. I can note now that the only reply to this is that 
> you can define a clade as a paraphyletic taxon, such that "clade" and 
> "monophyletic" are never synonymous in a cladistic sense, so this point seems 
> relatively unimportant. It also seems curious why there was not a need to 
> simply provide the differential diagnosis to an establish name, instead of 
> attempting to name a new taxon, but I'll leave that argument to people better 
> than me.

Luckily, we're all fresh from the Lewisichinae issue- 
 .  In this case, Rauhut et al. phylogenetically defined Proceratosauridae, 
which should certainly count as a "description or definition that states in 
words characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon."  There's 
nothing in the ICZN stating characters have to be morphological instead of 
Mickey Mortimer
The Theropod Database Blog- http://theropoddatabase.blogspot.com/