[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Andrew McDonald response re: European iguanodonts
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Andrew McDonald response re: European iguanodonts
- From: Tim Williams <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 08:44:14 +1000
- Authentication-results: msg-ironport1.usc.edu; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
- In-reply-to: <4D999AC2.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <email@example.com> <AANLkTik5k=1cYK6sb+nBNgOVR-m+vRV=ZqYAXjv+t-bT@mail.gmail.com>
- Reply-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Sender: owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 8:17 PM, David Marjanovic
> Before Mickey Mortimer wakes up...
>> Under these circumstances, either _T. formosus_ is a nomen dubium, or
>> a new holotype (neotype) would be designated in order to keep the
>> genus _Troodon_ as a valid taxon (as was done with _Iguanodon_). If
>> the former, we would go back to calling the family
> No, why?
> There's no reason to dump Ceratopsidae or Titanosauridae either.
Titanosauridae has already been dumped. Ceratopsidae should be dumped.
Using your logic, Deinodontidae should be used instead of
Tyrannosauridae, because the former has priority (it was named first).
But we don't, because _Deinodon_ is a nomen dubium.
There's no point naming a family-level clade after a genus, unless
you're going to include that genus in the phylogenetic definition of
that clade. Otherwise, you can't be sure if the nominative genus
actually belongs inside the clade.
I hope Mickey Mortimer had a good night's sleep.... ;-)