[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:
> There should be a petition to the ICZN in that case, and also a detailed
> redescription of Deinodon's syntypes that compared them in depth to other
Great idea! Who's going to do all of this? You? ;-)
> It doesn't mean we have to include Deinodon in an analysis, only that we have
> to use evidence to place it somewhere in a phylogeny. Maybe that would be
> morphometric evidence, as that's commonly used based on expansions of Smith's
> measurement sample. Of course adding Deinodon to a phylogenetic analysis is
> itself scientifically interesting- to tell us something quantitative about
> where it belongs in the tree of life.
As we all know, _Deinodon_ is known from a handful of teeth that Leidy
decided to dignify with a name. The fact that _Deinodon_ has a name
is the only reason it gets any attention at all. I'm not certain how
"scientifically" interesting plugging it into an analysis would be. I
suspect it might be a grand waste of time.
> Here's the thing (and we've probably been over this before, but I forget your
> answer...)- Yeah, renaming Tyrannosauroidea Coeluroidea is silly. But why
> are you against petitioning the ICZN to prevent this, instead of just
> ignoring the rules whenever you think
> they don't function well? That is the reason petitioning exists, after all.
PhyloCode makes such a petition redundant and pointless. I believe
this was Matt's point (although he expressed it far more articulately
and diplomatically than I am).
> I don't think phylogenetic nomenclature has anything to do with this. If we
> didn't have a phylogenetic definition for Tyrannosauroidea or
> Tyrannosauridae, you'd no doubt still think using Deinodontidae and
> Coeluroidea is silly. Right?
Right. Let's pick a name, and stick with it. Tyrannosauroidea is a
great name, and it's widely used. More importantly, it's also been
explicitly defined as a clade. Why ditch it in favor of
Deinodontoidea or Coeluroidea?
Jocelyn Falconnet <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> If we have to forget names based on nomina dubia... what about
> ceratopsians and other Ceratops-derived names ?
We're only talking about coordinated family-level names
(superfamily/-oidea, family/-idae, subfamily/-inae, tribe/-ini).