Re: [dinosaur] Pterosaur ingroup relationships (free pdf)

[David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

> Dalla Vecchia (2014: p.209) defined the clade Caviraminae as "the clade that 
> contains Caviramus schesaplanensis, RaeticodactylusÂfilisurensis, and 
> allÂdescendants of their most recent common ancestor". Therefore, the new 
> clade proposed by Benson (2020) as Caviramidae should retain the authorship 
> and date Dalla Vecchia (2014) following theÂPrinciple of Coordination 
> (Art.36) of the ICZN, shouldn't it?

The ICZN does not apply. Baron did not call Caviramidae a family (instead 
calling it "clade novo", which is no language at all) and did not explicitly 
give it a type genus; for each of these two reasons it is not available 
according to the ICZN. Ending in -idae is not enough to actually make it the 
name of a family, and neither is the fact that the publication is registered in 
ZooBank.

The ICPN doesn't apply either, because Baron has not registered Caviramidae in 
RegNum. Dalla Vecchia wasn't able to register Caviraminae because that only 
became possible on 8 June 2020. As with online publications under the ICZN, any 
names published on any medium under the ICPN must be registered before they're 
published, not afterwards.

(The ICPN has no principle of coordination because it doesn't care about ranks 
at all. It considers Caviraminae and Caviramidae two separate "preexisting 
names" that could be "converted" but haven't been so far.)