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

Re: terminology

 And as I'm sure you know, Wilson and Upchurch 2003 showed that the
 genus Titanosaurus is no longer diagnosable, and that according to
 ICZN rules this means that co-ordinated family-level names such as
 Titanosauridae should no longer be used.

They showed the former, but not the latter.

The ICZN doesn't care about nomina dubia. It cares about nomenclature, not about taxonomy. In fact, the only two times it mentions the term "nomen dubium", it says neotypes should be proposed for such names -- something that has never been done for a Mesozoic dinosaur.

If *Titanosaurus* is not diagnosable, that doesn't automatically mean that Titanosauridae is undiagnosable, too; as long as *Titanosaurus* can still be referred to Titanosauridae on morphological evidence, Titanosauridae does not suffer at all.

To eliminate Titanosauridae, *Titanosaurus* would have to be a junior synonym or (I guess) a nomen nudum.

See comments 33, 35, and 39 here: http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2010/12/stegosaur_wars.php

And never forget that the ICZN is online in its entirety. You can just read it. It's poorly written, long and convoluted, and I even found an internal contradiction a year or three ago, but still, here it is: