[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Paleozoic tetrapod papers
In fact, they could have just followed Article 29.6 of the Code.
Considering *Cacops* as the correct stem, they could have created the
subfamily/clade Cacopsinae. That would have been acceptable for both
codes. For any taxonomist, Eucacopinae refers obviously to some
*Eucacops*, *Eucacopus* or any kind of genus name which could produces
the stem eucacop-.
Whatever, Schoch and Sues could have seleted another genus of their
clade to form a new subfamily name / clade name. There was no need to
select *Cacops*, even if it is the best known and the earliest named
member of the clade.
Too bad, as their work seems otherwise pretty good, as usual.
Le 13/08/2013 10:16, Tim Williams a écrit :
David Marjanovic <email@example.com> wrote:
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
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;
would seem a much better idea to stick with this name.
"As a Professor of Science, I assure you we did in fact evolve from
filthy monkey men." Hubert J. Farnworth.