[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: [dinosaur] New Konzhukovia species (temnospondyl) from Permian of South America + Early Triassic polar coprolites + more papers
Mickey Mortimer <email@example.com> wrote:
> Apparently the misunderstanding where authors think family-level groups can't
> be based on nomina dubia extends to non-dinosaurian taxa as well.
Yes, family-level groups *can* be based on nomina dubia - this is
allowed by the ICZN. But the question is: *should* family-level
groups be based on nomina dubia? I don't think they should be. Do we
have to replace Tyrannosauridae with Deinodontidae, simply because
Deinodontidae was named first? This seems like the nomenclatural
equivalent of political correctness gone mad.
A family-level group is a clade, and the clade needs to be defined
using the nominal taxon. So if we use the family Deinodontidae in
preference to Tyrannosauridae, then we have to use _Deinodon_ as a
specifier. That means we have to include _Deinodon_ in a phylogenetic
analysis. But if _Deinodon_ is crap, then there's no point including
it in a phylogenetic analysis. It would be done simply for
bookkeeping reasons - there is no valid scientific reason.
This issue of priority may come up again, from another direction.
Some phylogenetic analyses find _Coelurus_ to belong to the
Tyrannosauroidea. In this case, ICZN 'rules' would require that the
Tyrannosauroidea be renamed Coeluroidea (because Coeluridae was named
before Tyrannosauridae). This is silly.
I know this is a well-worn argument; but once family-level taxa were
converted into clades, I see no reason why ICZN 'rules' are necessary
when it comes to priority.