Re: Mononykine or Parvicursorine?

["Jonathan R. Wagner" <znc14@TTACS.TTU.EDU>]

        Tim Williams wrote:
>Doesn't matter.  If there is a subfamily of the Alvarezsauridae that 
>includes both _Parvicursor_ and _Mononykus_, then that subfamily must 
>be called Parvicursorinae.
        Dinogeorge wrote:
>If _Mononykus_ and _Parvicursor_ are classified in the same
>subfamily, then it must be called Parvicursorinae according to ICZN rules.
        T. Mike Keesey wrote:
>Yeeeee... cladistics may have done away with supergeneric ranks, but I
>haven't seen any violations like this!

        This would all be important if phylogenetic taxonomy were bound by
ICZN rules concerning *suprageneric* taxa. However, practitioners of PT do
not seem to be interested in those rules, and nothing I have read (which is
admittedly not enough) suggests that these rules have any place in PT. Some
practitioners do follow the rules at least loosely, presumably either for
convenience, out of habit, or out of respect for history of taxonomy. 
        If you must insist: PT does not recognize rank. ICZN rules only
apply to familial or lower ranked taxa. In order to apply the rules, you
must first demonstrate a rank for this taxon. You would have to demonstrate
that the suffix "-inae" *UNEQUIVOCALLY* denotes a subfamily *under the ICZN
code*. Good luck.
        Unless, of course, the authors explicitely *called* it a
"subfamily". In that case, all of the above criticisms are correct, and the
authors have been very naughty indeed.

        Wagner
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Jonathan R. Wagner, Dept. of Geosciences, TTU, Lubbock, TX 79409-1053
          "They cannot follow you if you are dead..." - A Shadow