[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
Tim Williams 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 _should_ have been done by Russell before he ditched the name Deinodontidae.
But yeah, it'll take actual work.
>> 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 tooth
>> 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.
The fact it has a name is what makes it significant. It's not biologically
interesting, since it's just a couple teeth of what's likely to be a known
taxon, but it's interesting to paleontology in a historical and taxonomic sense.
>> 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).
Except that Phylocode doesn't officially exist yet. There have been seven
proposed phylogenetic definitions for Tyrannosauridae, for instance. None are
official, but three define the same clade in Brusatte et al.'s (2016)
topologies. I'm sure some if not most break at least one Phylocode rule as
well. So you'd ignore the current rules for another system which is supposed
to work in conjunction with them, and may not be enacted for years if ever.
>> 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?
Ah, but what if different people pick different names? Are you actually
arguing for a populist anarchy in nomenclature?
> Jocelyn Falconnet <email@example.com> 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).
There's still Ceratopsidae and Ceratopsoidea.
<div id="DDB4FAA8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br />
<table style="border-top: 1px solid #aaabb6;">
<td style="width: 55px; padding-top: 13px;"><a
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 15px; color: #41424e;
font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height:
" target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;">www.avast.com</a>
</table><a href="#DDB4FAA8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1"