|
> Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 16:22:24 +1000 > From: tijawi@gmail.com > To: dinosaur-l@usc.edu > Subject: Re: [dinosaur] Tyrannosaurs and Deinodons (was re New Konzhukovia species (temnospondyl) from Permian of South America + Early Triassic polar coprolites + more papers > > Anthony <keenir@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > Were Deinodontidae and Deinodontoidea actually created, or is their > > existence assumed based on backforming from _Deinodon_ & the higher clades > > which were named for _Tyrannosaurus_? > > (I've seen backforming in linguistics, but not in nomenclature) > > Deinodontidae was named by Brown (1914). Same for Deinodontoidea. ah, okay. > > So, because Cope and Marsh forgot to define Deinodon's clades, we can't use > > it? :) > We can use Deinodontidae - if we want to. But why should we want to? > Deinodontidae is just not useful as a clade, because it's pegged to > _Deinodon_ (a nomen dubium). Tyrannosauridae (and -oidea etc) is a > far more useful clade because it's pegged to _Tyrannosaurus_. ...which brings us back to what others were saying about _Ceratops_. :) > > So, the ICZN assumes that, if something has a name, there's no need to worry > > about finding a place for it - it already has one? > > > > That does sound handy. > > I don't understand what you're asking/saying here. from what I understand of your reply... in the ICZN, if something is given a name, it automatically has a place in the hierarchy, a location in the Linnean ranks (king Philip etc) ...whereas in any system outside the ICZN, just because something has a name, doesn't mean it has a place. ......meaning that, while _Deinodon_ has a name and a place in the ICZN, it is an orphan that should be left in the bulrushes of the wilderness. |