[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Platecarpus tympaniticus - how to analyze a nomen dubium
T. Michael Keesey <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Minor correction: the type *species* of that genus must be used as a
> specifier. Or the type specimen of the type species.
Yep, dead right. I was trying to keep it simple by just referring to
_Ceratops_, rather than _C. montanus_ and/or the type species (it amounts to
the same thing).
> So any name based
> on "Ceratops" (not just the ICZN names--"Ceratopsoidea",
> "Ceratopsidae", "Ceratopsinae", "Ceratopsini", "Ceratopsina"--but
> others like "Ceratopsia" and "Ceratopsomorpha") must include either
> Ceratops montanus Marsh 1888 or USNM 2411 as an internal
Mike, I'm glad you mentioned that, because I was wondering about this.
In the case of Ceratopsia, doesn't it depend on whether Marsh (1890) explicitly
named it after _Ceratops_? Because if Marsh just coined the name 'Ceratopsia'
to mean "horned faces", then there is no eponym. Therefore, Ceratopsia
shouldn't need to be defined such that _Ceratops_ is an internal specifier.
(Ceratopsidae and Ceratopsinae are different, because they are converted
family-group taxa, and were automatically typified by _Ceratops_.)
To put it another way, unless Marsh was 100% clear that Ceratopsia was named
after _Ceratops_ (rather than Ceratopsia and _Ceratops_ just having the same
etymologies) then there is no requirement under PhyloCode to include the _C.
montanus_ type as an internal specifier for Ceratopsia.