Subject: Re: [dinosaur] Tyrannosaurs and Deinodons (was re New Konzhukovia species (temnospondyl) from Permian of South America + Early Triassic polar coprolites + more papers
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:01:58 -0400
CC: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
>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.
thank you for the clarification and explanation. much appreciated.
> Matt Martyniuk <email@example.com> wrote:
> > The confusion here comes from mixing two totally distinct nomenclatural
> > systems (ICZN and phylogenetic pre-PhyloCode nomenclature).
> Exactly. Clades that end in -idae, -inae, -ini and (most of the time)
> -oidea are subject to ICZN, because they are deemed to be coordinated
> family-level taxa. But, IMHO there is no need for them to be treated
> as families, superfamilies, etc. They're just clades.
Then what's the problem? the -oidea and such would be a legacy of its past, and would be less noteworthy than that we English-speakers say we wear shoes and not shoen (its the same thing - just in two early modern dialects)
> > 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.
> Under the current phylogenetic definition(s), Tyrannosauroidea is a
> stem-based clade. Certain phylogenetic analyses recover _Coelurus_
> inside the Tyrannosauroidea (e.g., the recent _Timurlengia_ paper).
> Under phylogenetic nomenclature Coeluroidea does not exist - as you
> say. But according to strict application of the ICZN rules, this
> doesn't matter - Coeluroidea still has priority over Tyrannosauroidea
if Coeluroidea gets defined next week or next year, it has priority over the older definition of Tyrannosauridea? even if that's true (and not an understandable misinterpretation or misreading), wouldn't that only matter if Coeluroidea is given the exact same definition of Tyrannosauridea?
> (because both would regarded as 'superfamilies'), irrespective of the
> fact that Coeluroidea has never been defined as a clade. This is
> where the conflict lies. Unlike Mickey, I don't think we need a
> petition to the ICZN to resolve this. I think we can simply ignore
> Coeluroidea for the reason that it is not defined as a clade (whereas
> Tyrannosauroidea *is* defined as a clade).
see below...that's just a strange answer. so...it can't be defined as a clade...because it hasn't yet been defined as a clade?
> Anthony <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > How is it political correctness? (are we keeping _Tyrannosauridae_ not
> > because it has priority, but because its better-known and-or is a more
> > popular name?
> Because it is defined as a clade, and has been used as such throughout
> the literature.
That's not political correctness.
And its odd that part of your answer was "because it is defined as a clade"...and yet your reaction to the Deinodontidea was that it was not defined -- as though it couldn't be done.
> > that doesn't seem any more appealing than political
> > correctness. (though, if we were being politically correct, wouldn't we
> > rename it in the language of one or more of the tribes who lived where the
> > type specimen of genus _Tyrannosaurus_ was found?))
> Umm... what?
If political correctness were an issue, we'd be re-naming T.rex with a name drawn from a native language spoken where T.rex fossils were taken from the ground. As opposed to a name in Latin or Greek.