Romer (1947) lists Watson's classification with Anthracosauroideae and Loxommoideae being superfamilies, but maybe there was just less standardization at the time.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com> on behalf of Tim Williams <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2020 10:13 PM
To: email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: [dinosaur] Anthracosauroid Eldeceeon redescribed + Permian discosauriscid fossil sites in Czech Republic
Mickey Mortimer <email@example.com> wrote:
> What's the story behind using the -oideae suffix for basal tetrapods, and isn't that automatically corrected to -oidea under the ICZN?
Unless Anthracosauroideae is explicitly used as a superfamily (a
coordinated family-level taxon), then the ICZN has no business
correcting the name to -oidea. The name Anthracosauroideae was
originally erected by Watson (1929), and revived by Smithson (1985) as
a suborder of Anthracosauria (with Seymouriamorpha as the other
suborder). So on that basis it shouldn't fall under the Code at all.