Re: Podokesauridae, Problems of Nomenclature Returned

["T. Mike Keesey" <tmk@dinosauricon.com>]

On Sun, 20 Jan 2002, David Marjanovic wrote:

> I haven't stated the above because *Podokesaurus* may be *Coelophysis*, but
> because *Podokesaurus* is so badly preserved and apparently so undiagnostic.
> Can valid ICZN families be named after nomina dubia?

Ceratopsidae, Fabrosauridae, Hadrosauridae, Titanosauridae, and some would
even say Troodontidae. The designation of _nomen dubium_ is a subjective
one, so there should be no formal rules based on it. Then again, we don't
use Deinodontidae (for Tyrannosauridae)....

On a side note related to the topic being discussed here, I would like to
make a quick analogy relating to precedence of naming vs. precedence of
definition. A species name published without a type specimen being
desginated is not considered valid -- why should a clade name be
considered valid if it is not published with a definition? If Dr. A names
species x without designating a type specimen, and then Dr. B names
species y with type specimen z, nobody is going to say, "Oh, Dr. A *meant*
to use type specimen z -- he named it first so we should use x instead of
y." I feel the same way about clades (although things are going to be a
little loosey-goosey until PhyloCode is implemented).

_____________________________________________________________________________
T. MICHAEL KEESEY
 The Dinosauricon        <http://dinosauricon.com>
  BloodySteak             <http://www.bloodysteak.com>
   personal                <keesey@bigfoot.com> --> <tmk@dinosauricon.com>
    Dinosauricon-related    <dinosaur@dinosauricon.com>
     AOL Instant Messenger   <Ric Blayze>
      ICQ                     <77314901>
       Yahoo! Messenger        <Mighty Odinn>