[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)

Thomas Richard Holtz <tholtz@umd.edu> wrote:

> In a related point, if Pisanosaurus does prove to belong in a clade with
> Silesaurus, Asilisaurus, and co., but not dinosaurs, a strict reading of the
> rules means this family should be Pisanosauridae (which has a 30-some year
> priority over Silesauridae).

According to ICZN Article 13.1.1., for a new taxon to be valid, "it
must be accompanied by a description or definition that states in
words characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon".
(This is why Lewisuchidae can be quashed in favor of Silesauridae;
even though Lewisuchidae [as Lewisuchinae] was named 22 years before
Silesauridae, it never received a formal description or diagnosis.)

Even after reading the description of _Pisanosaurus_ (a translated
 ) I'm not
certain Pisanosauridae conforms to Article 13.1.1.  _Pisanosaurus_
received a description, and Pisanosauridae is erected as part of this
description... so the unique anatomical characters that distinguished
_Pisanosaurus_ from the remaining ornithischians also distinguished
Pisanosauridae at the same time.. so I guess it's okay.  As you know,
Agnolin and Rozadilla note that their referral of _Pisanosaurus_ to
Silesauridae is not particularly secure (though superior to regarding
it as a basal ornithischian), which is a good reason for retaining
Silesauridae over Pisanosauridae.  (The authors also invoke ICZN
Article, but I don't think that applies, given that
Silesauridae was named less than 10 years ago).

David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at> wrote:

> > Tyrannosauridae should certainly have preference over Deinodontidae.
> Of course. If you'll write a petition to the Commission, I'll join it.

We shouldn't need to.  ICZN Article should mean
Tyrannosauridae can still be used in preference to Deinodontidae.