The confusion here comes from mixing two totally distinct nomenclatural systems (ICZN and phylogenetic pre-PhyloCode nomenclature). As far as the ICZN is concerned, neither Coeluroidea nor Tyrannosauroidea nor Deinodontoidea need phylogenetic definitions, let alone monophyletic ones. Even if Coelurus is closer to Tyrannosaurus than to Aves, Coeluroidea could be treated, under the ICZN, as a basal grade from which Tyrannosauroids evolved, or as monotypic including only Coelurus itself. Under ICZN, therefore, Coeluroidea and Tyrannosauroidea are only synonyms if you want them to be.
Under phylogenetic nomenclature, Coeluroidea doesn't even exist, since afaik it has never been defined as a clade and even if someone were to define it today, it would be a younger synonym, within this parallel system, of Tyrannosauroidea, assuming someone defined them synonymously, which doesn't need to be the case (you could define Coeluroidea as a node that may end up as a subclade of the branch-based Tyrannosauroidea, as with Paraves and Eumaniraptora.
Deinodontoidea is a similar case. It has priority over Tyrannosauroidea in the ICZN system, but doesn't exist in the PhyloCode system.
On Apr 12, 2016, at 5:25 AM, Anthony <email@example.com> wrote: