[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)



> After all, families are now clades -

I'll have to ask the colleagues in my office next month if that's how they 
classify their ammonites now, but I doubt it. They tell me that almost nobody 
even does phylogenetic analyses on ammonites because of a lack of characters 
and repeated complete convergence...

> something the ICZN could not have envisaged
> when its stringent rules regarding 'family'-level names were crafted.

The version currently in force was implemented in 1999. Obviously many rules 
are older than that, but those that are in the current version were all 
deliberately kept there.

> Tyrannosauridae should certainly have preference over Deinodontidae.

Of course. If you'll write a petition to the Commission, I'll join it.

Progress on the companion volume to the so-called PhyloCode is still being 
made, and implementation is close. We might get to the point where we really 
don't need the ICZN anymore. But right now, the effort of writing a petition 
doesn't seem to outweigh the disadvantage of not having an agreed-on rulework 
at all.

> As it is, and assuming _Ceratops_ is a ceratopsid
> (which I admit does seem likely for _Ceratops_, based on the
> morphology of the horn cores), it is extremely difficult to determine
> whether _Ceratops_ is a chasmosaurine or a centrosaurine.

That's why Ceratopsinae is being treated as a nomen dubium.

> > OTU just means "line in a data matrix". Several specimen-level phylogenetic 
> > analyses (of other clades) have been performed.
>
> True - but these clades are taxa. Once a species is declared to be a
> nomen dubium, it is no longer a taxon.

I think you're confusing species with their names.