[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

Mike Keesey wrote-

> > Actually, I think the PhyloCode leaves enough wiggle-room for us to do
> > what is obviously the right thing here: Article 11.7 is the relevant
> > one, and it says "In the interest of consistency with the rank-based
> [...]
> I stand corrected; I think I was thinking of an older draft which
> didn't say "typified name". "Ceratopsia" and "Ceratopsomorpha" are not
> typified names under any rank-based code, so we can, in theory, define
> them without Ceratops montanus.

I considered that as well, but Article 11.7 covers not only typified names 
under a rank-based code, but also clades "derived from the stem of a such a 
name."  So since Ceratopsia and Ceratopsomorpha are still derived from the stem 
of a typified name under the ICZN (Ceratops), they must also include that name 
as an internal specifier.  This is a good thing in my opinion, since it gets 
rid of the artificial difference between how family-level clades and other 
clades are treated.

Mickey Mortimer