Re: Informal names (was RE: Meet me & see my website)

["Mickey Mortimer" <Mickey_Mortimer111@msn.com>]

Thomas Holtz wrote-

> Each and everyone of these (except maybe Iliosuchidae) had an existence in
> the formal literature independant of phylogenetic taxonomy.

Iliosuchidae was only used by Paul (1988) if I recall correctly.
I'm not arguing Enigmosauria should be accepted as valid under phylogenetic
taxonomy (which it clearly isn't, even if we assume it's past 1-1-200n and
soften the rules), just that it's not invalid according to any accepted
written ruleset.

> > and it doesn't cover higher taxa.
>
> True.  BUT just because there is no formal international body governing
> these rules doesn't mean there aren't well accepted traditions.  Like
having
> to have the name published in the text, not just a figure.  And like not
> using a name from an undergraduate college-level handout (which is
precisely
> what Enigmosauria is: a construct by Mike Keesey in my HONR 259C (then
159C)
> honors seminar.  Had I not posted it to the list, nor Mike, no one would
> have ever heard of it).

This is all I was trying to get at.  A higher taxonomic name can only be
"unofficially" invalid.  I'm happy to end the debate at this point.  I think
we've both summed up our positions well.

> A coining (if nothing else) in a peer reviewed papers are still, in the
mind
> of most researchers, a minimum necessity for any formal taxonomic name in
> any system.  Enigmosauria doesn't get that, yet.  (And Darren admits that
> the inclusion in the figure is a mistake).

The volume wasn't peer reviewed?

Mickey Mortimer