[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: tiny-armed theropods
> Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 17:15:42 +1100
> From: email@example.com
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: tiny-armed theropods
> Anthony Docimo <email@example.com> wrote:
> > and by "community", do you mean the scientific community, or the public?
> The scientific community i.e., those in the field.
good to know.
> > Does that apply across the board, or should they only have the right to
> > defy the ICZN?
> going to be banging the _Troodon_ type specimen with the soles of
> their shoes.
I imagine that person's name would be mud afterwards. (given the specimen
probably wouldn't survive the beating)
> What's happened is that over time certain names have accreted into
> preferred usage (such as Tyrannosauridae), even though the ICZN Code
> directs that other names should have priority (such as Deinodontidae).
> But unless a petition is made to the ICZN, the ICZN does not act to
> enforce this priority.
And this is a bad thing?
(given how many priority names have probably fallen by the wayside since the
ICZN was started...)
> > (when PhyloCode or anything else has the authority and weight that the ICZN
> > presently has, will
> > you say "we should let sauropod workers decide" or will you say "we have to
> > comply" ?)
> Similarly, strictly speaking, if _Podokesaurus_ is found to be closely
> related to _Coelophysis_, then the taxon Coelophysoidea should be
> re-named Podokesauroidea - because of ICZN rules. But IMHO it's a bad
> idea to change the name from Coelophysoidea to Podekesauroidea (and
> back again, if necessary) simply because of the labile position of
> _Podokesaurus_ relative to _Coelophysis_. Let's come up with a name,
> and stick to it. And it would really help the cause of nomenclatural
> stability if crappy genera (especially nomina dubia) were *not* used
> as name-bearing taxa.
On the other hand, if you make up a name that you think all Coelophysids and
Podokesaurids can be grouped together within (say, Gdayraptoroidea), that
might also prove labile if the features you assign it (based on the
Coelophysids and Podokesaurids and anyone else you group with them at the time)
turn out to be not what you thought...such as if _Coelophysis_ belongs outside
the group, far away from _Podokesaurus_.
Would the Gdayraptoroidea have to be scrapped?