Re: New name for Megalosaurus hesperis

[Tim Williams <tijawi@yahoo.com>]

Mike Keesey wrote:


> So, you want an end to ranks, yet you also want to go
> through the
> trouble of creating new names so as to be in accordance
> with a
> rank-based code? :)

Rules is rules!  :-)  Yes, I want to end ranks.  But the ICZN keeps on sticking 
its oar into coordinate family-level taxonomy, so it's best to frame such taxa 
accordingly.  In an ideal world, the ICZN would only handle genera and species, 
whereas everything above genera (families included) would no longer be within 
the ICZN sphere.


> Anyway, like I said, you could also just declare it an
> unranked taxon.

Yes, having explicitly unranked taxa is a good idea.  However, if somebody sees 
a new name that ends in -oidea, there might be a tendency to treat is as a 
superfamily (i.e., as a coordinate family level taxon), irrespective of the 
original intent.  The echinoderm 'classes' (e.g., Asteroidea, which you 
mentioned) are entrenched clades with long taxonomic histories, and are 
therefore exceptional.  


> Also at least one example among theropods: Microraptoria.

Which was subsequently changed to Microraptorinae.  :-)  

I've got nothing against clades ending in -oidea, -idae, -inae and -ini, per 
se.  It's just that their definitions require extra care (or later emendations) 
to conform to the Linnaean tenets enshrined in the ICZN code, to ensure that 
the hierarchy is kept constant across changing topologies.  Aside from being a 
no-no under ICZN rules, it would be 'odd', for example, if Dromaeosaurinae 
ended up inside Microraptorinae - or vice versa.  


> > Overall, IMHO having Megalosauria or Spinosauria (or
> > whatever) would be the preferred option - in this case,
> > anyway.  Megalosauria is available (Baur, 1891).
> 
> Oh, not a new name. Well, then....


Additonally, "megalosaurs" has a great deal of mileage as an informal term.    
The taxon Megalosauria allows this (admittedly nebulous) concept to live on as 
a formal taxon.


I know these taxonomic/nomenclatural arguments are dry-as-dust and painfully 
pedantic - so my apologies to anyone who's made it this far.  But if we're 
going to erect new names (or convert existing ones), it's best to do it 
properly, and minimize confusion down the line.


Cheers

Tim