Re: Platecarpus tympaniticus - how to analyze a nomen dubium

[Tim Williams <tijawi@yahoo.com>]

T. Michael Keesey <keesey@gmail.com> wrote:
 
> Minor correction: the type *species* of that genus must be used as a
> specifier. Or the type specimen of the type species. 


Yep, dead right.  I was trying to keep it simple by just referring to 
_Ceratops_, rather than _C. montanus_ and/or the type species (it amounts to 
the same thing).


> So any name based
> on "Ceratops" (not just the ICZN names--"Ceratopsoidea", 
> "Ceratopsidae", "Ceratopsinae", "Ceratopsini", "Ceratopsina"--but
> others like "Ceratopsia" and "Ceratopsomorpha") must include either
> Ceratops montanus Marsh 1888 or USNM 2411 as an internal
> specifier.


Mike, I'm glad you mentioned that, because I was wondering about this.


In the case of Ceratopsia, doesn't it depend on whether Marsh (1890) explicitly 
named it after _Ceratops_?  Because if Marsh just coined the name 'Ceratopsia' 
to mean "horned faces", then there is no eponym.  Therefore, Ceratopsia 
shouldn't need to be defined such that _Ceratops_ is an internal specifier.  
(Ceratopsidae and Ceratopsinae are different, because they are converted 
family-group taxa, and were automatically typified by _Ceratops_.)


To put it another way, unless Marsh was 100% clear that Ceratopsia was named 
after _Ceratops_ (rather than Ceratopsia and _Ceratops_ just having the same 
etymologies) then there is no requirement under PhyloCode to include the _C. 
montanus_ type as an internal specifier for Ceratopsia.  



Cheers

Tim