[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Paleozoic tetrapod papers
> 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
Adding a prefix to a family-group name is never right. What's right is what
> But there's nothing wrong with having homonymous higher-level clades.
There _is_ something wrong with having homonyms that are governed by the same
code, and the ICZN governs all names at the species-group, genus-group and
family-group ranks. The rank of subfamily (with its mandatory ending -inae)
belongs to the family group.
> 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).
Orders and phyla, conversely, do not belong to any of those groups; most rules
of the ICZN, including priority, don't apply to them.
That's right, both Tardigrada are completely unregulated by any code of
nomenclature. One more reason to implement the PhyloCode (we're working on it).
The sloths are now often called Phyllophaga ("leaf-eaters"). I like that.
> 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.
Well, no, because of Cacopinae Noble, 1931 (...which should have been
"Cacopodinae"... and actually, I have to look up if different rules apply to
such old names).