RE: Segnosauria vs. Therizinosauria

["Timothy Williams" <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

Tom Holtz wrote:

> Technically, the superfamily is part of the "family group", and thus not a
> suprafamilial taxon!

Yep, thought you meant "family level".

> Obviously someone not familiar with the mantra "Burn the Code"... :-)

Hey, hand me the kero.  I'm weary of families (and superfamilies) in which 
the name-bearing genus is based on crappy material.  So, if _Spondylosoma_ 
is shown to be a valid genus and to belong to Staurikosauridae, we have to 
rename the family Spondylosomatidae because this family was named decades 
before Staurikosauridae.  Gimme a break!  If _Troodon_ is shown to be an 
invalid genus (for the same reason that _Deinodon_ and _Trachodon_ are 
_nomina dubia_) then we have to go back to calling this family 
Saurornithoididae.  Why couldn't we have stuck with Barsbold's 
Saurornithoididae, which has a more stable genus as its name-bearer?  
Because the ICZN said we couldn't, that's why.

(Deep breaths)

> Also, be warned: the "-oidea" is *NOT* always used with the superfamily
> group.

True.  To avoid this kind of confusion I think is the reason why 
entomologists used the suffix "-odea" rather than "-oidea" for certain 
"order"-level taxa (e.g. Grylloblattodea, Mantodea)

> [Incidentally, I hope this goes some way towards dismissing any notion that
> taxonomy was all neat and tidy prior to phylogenetic taxonomy!]

God forbid!


Tim
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com