[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Paleozoic tetrapod papers
> > 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.
> I agree that homonyms should never be allowed for genera/species.
> Having two genera named _Cacops_ would be a very bad thing, and this
> is something that the ICZN should police. But I can't understand why
> it's so bad to have two clades named Cacopinae.
~:-| For the exact same reason. Why is it worse to have two clades called
*Cacops* than two called *Cacopinae*?
> Having the ICZN govern all family-level clades is more of a hindrance
> than a help.
I completely agree. But then, to avoid confusion, authors should state when
they depart from the ICZN, and they should avoid its mandatory suffixes.
> The reason why I think Eucacopinae is a bad idea is because this name
> implies it contains a genus called Eucacops. As mentioned, the
> problem could have been bypassed by calling the new clade
> ("subfamily") Cacopsinae or Aspidosaurinae.
> So we do we still stick to these outdated ICZN
> conventions for family-level groups?
1) Weight of tradition;
2) lack of alternatives -- we're working on implementing the ICPN
("PhyloCode"), but we're not there yet. Having _a_ code of nomenclature is
generally better than having none at all.