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

RE: Theropod classification (link update)

I could quote the rationale for you*, but you know this is just going to end up 
with us having different values.  You think "the ICZN serves us", I think "we 
should follow the ICZN."  

* In 2000, Zhou and Wang proposed the family Caudipteridae for 
  Caudipteryx. Osmolska et al. (2004) emended this to Caudipterygidae, 
  since Caudipteridae is formed incorrectly (ICZN Article 29.3). It has been 
  this is unnecessary, since according to Article 29.4, "if after 1999 a new 
  family-group name is based on a generic name which is or ends in a Greek or 
  Latin word or ends in a Greek or Latin suffix, but its derivation does not 
  the grammatical procedures of Articles 29.3.1 or 29.3.2, its original 
  must be maintained as the correct original spelling." However, Article 
  29.4.2 states this is only true provided the genus was treated as an 
  combination of letters (e.g. "Caudipteryxidae"), which is not the 
  case. To complicate matters, Article 29.5 states "If a spelling of a 
  name was not formed in accordance with Article 29.3 but is in prevailing 
  that spelling is to be maintained, whether or not it is the original spelling 
  and whether or not its derivation from the name of the type genus is in 
  with the grammatical procedures in Articles 29.3.1 and 29.3.2." According 
  to Google, Caudipteridae has 2430 search results compared to 
Caudipterygidae's 396 
(as of August 2015). Thus Caudipteridae should be maintained.

Mickey Mortimer

> Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 18:54:05 +1000
> From: tijawi@gmail.com
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: Re: Theropod classification (link update)
> Mickey Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com> wrote:
> [snip]> I'm happy to see that definition get out in the literature,
> as well as definitions for Allosauria, Elmisaurinae, Coeluridae and
> Caudipteridae.
> Perhaps they could also spell "Caudipteridae" correctly
> (Caudipterygidae). After all, we have Archaeoptery
> Scansoriopterygidae. The correct spelling Caudipterygidae has been
> used, for example, in the recent _Hunansaurus_ description (Lu et al.
> 2015).
> It's also unfortunate (and no fault at all of the authors) that
> publication of this PalArch monograph was leapfrogged by the
> description of _Yi_ earlier this year. Thus, we now know that the
> slender and super-elongated finger of scansoriopteygids supported a
> membranous structure (wing?) rather than being used as a climbing aid,
> or to probe invertebrate prey (as in the aye-aye).