[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 <david.marjanovic@gmx.at> wrote:


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.



"As a Professor of Science, I assure you we did in fact evolve from filthy monkey men." Hubert J. Farnworth.