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

Re: Paleozoic tetrapod papers

David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at> wrote:

>> Eucacopinae
> Bad move.

Agreed.  The authors provide the following reasoning for calling the
clade Eucacopinae rather than Cacopinae: "Although the nomen Cacopinae
would be the logical derivative from the name of the nominal genus
_Cacops_, Noble (1931) already used Cacopinae for a group of frogs
including _Cacopus_."

But there's nothing wrong with having homonymous higher-level clades.
So what if there's two clades with the same name?  For example,
Tardigrada is both a clade ("phylum") of invertebrates (water bears)
and a clade of mammals (sloths).

Besides, Cacopinae has been used before for a temnospondyl clade
("subfamily") that includes _Cacops_ (e.g., Anderson et al., 2011;
http://dx.doi.org/10.1671/0272-4634(2008)28[61:GCANGA]2.0.CO;2)  It
would seem a much better idea to stick with this name.