[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: [dinosaur] Latenivenatrix, new troodontid from Dinosaur Park Formation, Alberta (validity of Troodon)

> I'd go one step further and abandon the name Troodontidae as well -
> and revert to using Saurornithoididae as the name for this clade. I
> know it's permissible to retain family-level taxa founded on nomina
> dubia (we still use Ceratopsidae, after all). But I still don't think
> it's a good idea (I also think the name Ceratopsidae should be
> abandoned).

It's not "permissible", it's required unless the family name is itself a nomen 
dubium, which is not automatically the case.

It's not like you get any choice in this matter as long as you stick to the 
ICZN. As long as the holotype tooth of *Troodon* fits the diagnosis of whatever 
"family" *Saurornithoides* belongs to and not that of any other "family", the 
name Troodontidae is valid and and Saurornithoididae is one of its junior 
synonyms. That's why Ceratopsidae and, yes, Titanosauridae are here to stay.

> As a nomen dubium, _Troodon_ would not be a genuine OTU
> (operational taxonomic unit),

OTU just means "line in a data matrix". Several specimen-level phylogenetic 
analyses (of other clades) have been performed.